Sahadevan vs M. Sajeev and The New India Assurance CO. Ltd, Tripuri Building, East Nadakkavu, Kozhikode

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

The appellant, a 30 year old Coolie while travelling by an auto rickshaw driven by the first respondent on 14/10/02 sustained injuries as the vehicle capsized due to the negligence of the first respondent. Against the claim of Rs. 2 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 33,950/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. As the second respondent admitted the policy they were fastened with the liability of paying the compensation. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company. The impugned award was also perused.

Ext.A2, a copy of the wound certificate which reveals that in addition to the lacerated wound below the left eye, multiple abrasions on the left arm as well as on the shoulder, and a puncture wound, the appellant sustained fracture to the shaft of humerus also. He was hospitalised for a period of 18 days. Towards compensation for pain and suffering the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. As we feel inadequacy in the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal we award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs. 6,000/- on that count.

Towards loss of amenities in life during the period of treatment and convalescence, no amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal. Undoubtedly the appellant might have been bedridden for a few weeks on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. As he has to be compensated for the same, we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life during the period of treatment and convalescence.

We notice that no separate amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards bystander''s expenses. As he was hospitalised for 18 days and as the accident was in the year 2002, he is entitled to get bystander''s expenses at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day. Thus we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 3,600/- under that head.

The appellant claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. He was a coolie. Considering the year in which the accident had occurred, we fix the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 2,500/-. Undoubtedly on account of the injuries sustained by him, he might not have been able to go for work at least for a period of four months. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of income, we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 7,000/- under that head.

Ext.C1 disability certificate which states that the appellant is having residual disability of 5% was admitted in evidence. That was accepted by the Tribunal also. However as we have revised and re-fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 2,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability has to be re-worked. The correct multiplier applicable to the age group of the appellant is 18. When disability compensation is reworked it will stand enhanced to Rs. 27,000/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 14,450/- under that head we award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs. 12,550/- towards compensation for permanent disability.

Thus in total the appellant gets a sum of Rs. 39,150/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal which will carry the same rate of interest specified in the award. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.