M.V. Baby vs K.H. Konthalam, Kunnel House, VIII/248, Ayavana P.O. Muvattuppuzha, T.V. Chacko, Thottappillil House, Punnakkattu Kara, Kothamangalam Via and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Cochin 2

Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2814 of 1997 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Ernakulam. The case of the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) is briefly as follows. The petitioner and one T.K. Krishnan as the pillion riders were travelling on a motor cycle, which was ridden by one Rajan, along Kothamangalam- Thattekkad road on 11-5-1997 at about 2.30 P.M. near Forest Check post at Erappunkal, the motor cycle was hit by a lorry bearing reg. no. KL-7P-3681 which came from west to east. In the accident all of them sustained injuries. They were first taken to St. Joseph''s Hospital, Kothamangalam and thereafter to the Malankara Medical Mission Hospital, Kolencherry. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who was the driver of the lorry. First respondent was the owner and third respondent was the insurer of the lorry. The petitioner claimed Rs. 3,62,750/- as compensation.

Respondent nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy with reference to engine number and chasis number; but denying the same with reference to registration no. KL-7/P-3681 and further contended that the accident occurred when the motor cycle collided with the lorry. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by Rajan and that he was carrying two pillion riders. Further contended in the written statement that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive.

Before the Claims Tribunal O.P.(M.V.) No. 2814 of 1997 was jointly tried with O.P.(M.V.) Nos. 2812 and 2813 of 1997, which were the connected cases. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to 19 and B1 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,750/- to the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2814 of 1997 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit from the respondents and the third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner filed this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads is on the lower side and that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, as follows:

Ext.A5 is the wound certificate issued from the Malankara Medical Mission Hospital, Kolencherry showing that due to the accident the appellant sustained the following injuries:

(a). Deep lacerated cut wound at the left supra.

(b). Deep lacerated wound at the orbital region, right elbow.

(c). Pain, functional disability, swelling at the right thigh.

Fracture femur.

(d) Pain, functional disability, swelling at right knee.

(e) Pain, functional disability + lacerated wound.

At the time of the accident, the appellant was an agriculturist and the Claims Tribunal took Rs. 1,500/- as his monthly income, which according to us is on the lower side and we fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,500/-. Calculating on that basis the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for loss of earning, in the place of Rs. 9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and treatment undergone, we are of the view that Rs. 1,500/- can be awarded towards transportation expenses, Rs. 3,000/- towards expenses for extra nourishment, Rs. 5,000/- towards bystander expenses, Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering and Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for loss of amenities, in place of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under those heads. Thus in total, the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 37,000/- as additional compensation.

Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/petitioner is allowed to realise Rs. 37,000/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount within three months from this date. There is no order as to costs.