National Insurance Company Limited vs Roy P.C.

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

These appeals are directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV) No.180/2000. The appellant in M.A.C.A No.1802/05 hereinafter referred to as the claimant preferred a claim of Rs. 4 lakhs before the Tribunal towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 06/02/2000. Allegedly while the claimant was riding his motorcycle he was hit down by a lorry which was coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the lorry was found negligent and the insurer of the said lorry who is the appellant in M.A.C.A.218/06 hereinafter referred to as the insurer was fastened with the liability of paying the compensation. The learned Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

In M.A.C.A No.1802/05 the claimant is challenging the adequacy of the compensation. In M.A.C.A No.218/06 the insurer would contend that the compensation awarded to the claimant for permanent disability is exorbitant as the learned Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplicand even though the injuries and the consequential disability has not reduced the earning capacity of the claimant.

We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the insurer and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant. The impugned award was also perused.

Medical records reveal that the claimant after the accident was admitted to Fathima Matha Hospital where the following injuries were noted :-

Disorientation

Abrasion. side face

Contused abrasion over anterior aspect of right shoulder and upper part of. side chest 5 x 4 cm.

Subcutaneous emphysema. infra clavicular area

Lacerated wound dorsum of. hand 4 x 1 cm with multiple abrasion.

Lacerated wound 7 x 4 cm. knee.

Compound comminuted fracture of. tibia with a lacerated wound 15 x 10 cm on the leg.

Abrasion 5 x 1 cm(L) thigh - inner side. (Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over back of. elbow

Fracture of 3rd rib (R)

The claimant was hospitalised for 20 days under two different spells as he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Calicut for follow up action. Going through the award we notice that fair and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Undoubtedly the claimant might have been bedridden for a good number of days and certainly he is entitled to get a just compensation for loss of amenities in life during the period of treatment and convalescence. As no amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal under that head we award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under that head.

As the accident was in the year 2000 the claimant is entitled to get bystander''s expenses at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day. As he was hospitalised for 20 days he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards bystander''s expenses. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs. 2,200/- he is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 1,800/- on that head.

The main grievance voiced against the award by the insurer is that the learned Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplicand for awarding compensation for permanent disability. In the claim petition, the claimant has stated that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, he being a college lecturer. He was 33 years old at the time of the accident. At the trial, he has produced Ext.A9 Salary Certificate which states that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 13,028/-. Ext.A7 is a disability certificate which states that he is having a residual disability of 10%. However, the learned Tribunal has adopted a lower percentage (i.e 8%) to arrive at the compensation for residual disability. Considering the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal could have adopted the percentage made mention of in Ext.A7. However, the learned Tribunal erred in adopting a higher multiplier. Accepting the statement made by the claimant in the claim petition that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,200/- as compensation for permanent disability adopting Rs. 10,000/- as the monthly income of the claimant. This according to the learned senior counsel for the insurer is unjustifiable. The learned senior counsel has invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011(1) KLT 620 SC) in support of his argument. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that Ext.A7 does not state that the disability has affected the earning capacity of the claimant. According to the learned senior counsel, the learned Tribunal ought to have adopted a notional income for arriving at the compensation for physical disability which the claimant was suffering from. We see considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the insurer.

The learned counsel for the claimant per contra would justify the action of the learned Tribunal. As already stated we feel justified in adopting the percentage of disability of the claimant as 10%. Considering the educational qualification of the claimant and the year in which the accident had occurred, we are of the view that there is justification in fixing the notional monthly income of the claimant for arriving at the compensation for permanent disability at Rs. 5,000/-. When the disability compensation is re-worked adopting the notional monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- as well as the percentage of disability made mention of in Ext.A7, the disability compensation shall stand reduced to Rs. 1,02,000/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,200/- the compensation for permanent disability shall stand reduced by Rs. 61,200/-.

We have already awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and a sum of Rs. 1,800/- towards bystander''s expenses. While offsetting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,800/- against the excess amount of Rs. 61,200/- awarded towards permanent disability, the compensation paid to the claimant shall stand reduced by Rs. 39,400/-. That means the appellant will get only Rs. 1,79,600/- as compensation.

We notice that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is only at the rate of 6%. We feel justified in awarding the claimant interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation, for the additional amount awarded. The appeals are allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.