P.V. Joseph @ Benny vs A. Abdul Rahiman and Others

M.L. Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 2639 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The case of the petitioner in the Original Petition (MV) is as follows: On 1st February, 1997 at about 6 p.m., the petitioner was riding a Scooter along Chittoor - Cheranalloor road and when he reached near Edayakunnam bridge, a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-7/M 3325 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit on the Scooter, as a result of which the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The first respondent was the owner of the mini lorry and the third respondent was the insurer. The petitioner claimed Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the mini lorry and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 were marked. The 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. 53,750 to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization 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 appearing for the Insurance Company.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is very low and that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the award.

The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

In the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries, as seen from Ext. A3 wound certificate issued from City Hospital, Ernakulam: 1. Lacerated injury, side of face 8 x 3 cms. x bone deep above upper eyelid extending from medial canthus of eye to outer canthus of eye - with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage and oedema of eyelids with tissue loss.

Abrasion 3 x 1.5 cms. over knee.

Swelling orbit, head injury.

Fracture frontal bone, side and intra cerebral haemorrhage.

Ext. A5 is the medical certificate. He was in the hospital for 27 days. Ext. A7 is the treatment certificate. Ext. A4 series are the medical bills for Rs. 17,307.

As per the direction of this Court, the appellant/petitioner personally appeared before this Court on 21st August, 2012 and this Court was convinced that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has 15% partial disability. The petitioner was a car mechanic and the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 1,500, which according to us is on the lower side and we fix the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 2,500. The petitioner was aged 29 years at the time of accident and therefore, ''17'' can be taken as the suitable multiplier. Calculating on that basis, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 76,500 (Rs. 2500 x 12 x 15 x 17/100) as compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power. The petitioner is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000 as compensation for loss of earnings for two months, in the place of Rs. 3,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads is reasonable and, therefore, we are not interfering with that portion of the award. Thus, in total, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 78,500 as additional compensation.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/petitioner is allowed to realize Rs. 78,500 as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from the respondents and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount within three months from this date. However; the appellant is not entitled to get interest for 533 days, which is the period of delay in filing the appeal. There is no order as to costs.