Rajesh vs Rejimon and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 1063/2003 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the above claim petition for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle as well and insured with the 2nd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and granted a total compensation of Rs. 49,500/- under various heads as follows:

Transportation

Rs. 1,000/-

Damage to clothing

Rs. 250/-

Extra nourishment

Rs. 1,000/-

Bystander''s expenses

Rs. 750/-

Treatment expenses

Rs. 2,500/-

Loss of earnings

Rs. 9,000/-

Pain and suffering

Rs. 20,000/-

Loss of amenities in life and enjoyment

Rs. 10,000/-

For the present physical inconveniences

Rs. 5,000/-

Total

Rs. 49,500/-

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant in the lower court had come before this Court with the above appeal.

At our request, Sri. George Cherian (Thiruvalla), Advocate, has appeared for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that he had produced documents to show that he is a contractor and doing contract work for the Water Authority and getting more than Rs. 10,000/- per month as income. But the Tribunal has wrongly discarded the documents and taken the monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-. Further, the documents produced will go to show that he was under treatment for a long period, but only three months was taken for assessing compensation under the head ''loss of earning''. Though he had produced disability certificate to show that he is having 17% disability, no amount has been awarded under the head'' loss of earning capacity''. The amount of compensation awarded under the heads ''pain and suffering, loss of amenities'' etc., are also less. So, he prayed for enhancement on all heads.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that considering the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in fixing a notional income and the amounts of compensation awarded under various heads are just and proper and no interference is called for.

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

The appellant has produced Exts. A9, A13 and A14 income tax returns to prove his income. Except producing the same, no evidence has been adduced on the side of the appellant to prove the contents thereof. So, in the absence of any evidence adduced on the side of the appellant, we do not find any fault with the Tribunal in taking the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant.

The appellant sustained fracture both bones on right leg and he had underwent treatment for long time. The plaster cast was removed after eight months, according to the appellant. But, there is nothing on record to show that he was not able to recover from the same completely. Considering the nature of the disability, we feel that he could not have attended his work for at least six months and he is entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for that period and we fix Rs. 18,000/- under that head instead of Rs. 9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. He has produced Ext.A11 disability certificate to show that he is having 17% disability. It is true that merely because he had produced a disability certificate, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that it has got any relationship with the occupation. Considering the fact that he is a contractor and he will have to go to the work place etc., we feel that 17% disability will have some impact on his occupation as well and we take 10% as occupational disability and taking 17 as the multiplier considering his age, he will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 61,200/- under the head ''loss of earning capacity (3000 x 12 x 17 x 10/100). Considering the nature of disability sustained by the appellant, we feel that it may have some impact on his personal life as well. So, we enhance the compensation awarded under the head ''loss of amenities'' to Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on two heads, ''loss of amenities in life and enjoyment and for the present physical inconveniences''. We do not find any reason to enhance the amount under other heads as the amount awarded is just and proper. So, in all, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 85,200/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the 2nd respondent is liable to pay with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Three months'' time is granted to the Insurance Company to pay this amount as well.

With the above modification of the award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.