Sinoj S. Nair vs S. Kuttan and M.T. Rajeshkumar

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The claimant is in appeal. Allegedly, while the appellant was traveling by an autorickshaw on 18/8/1999, he met with an accident as the autorickshaw collided with a car coming from the opposite direction. Against the claim of Rs. 1,75,000/- the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 63,260/- as compensation finding that the third respondent who was driving the car was negligent. As the 2nd respondent Insurance Company admitted the policy of the offending vehicle, they were directed to pay the compensation. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded to him.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. The impugned award was also perused.

Medical records reveal that the appellant sustained a fracture to his left femur. The fracture was managed by open reduction and internal fixation. After discharge from the hospital he had to be re-admitted again due to the failure of the internal fixation. The appellant was hospitalized for a total period of 59 days under three different phases. Towards compensation for pain and suffering the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. As we feel inadequacy in the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, we award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering.

Undoubtedly, the appellant might have been bed ridden for a good number of days and he has to be compensated for the loss of amenities in life during the period of treatment and convalescence. We notice that no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal under that head. Hence, we award to the appellant an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under that head.

According to the appellant, he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 3,600/-, being a plumber cum wireman. Allegedly he was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant as 1500/-. The accident was in the year 1999. Considering the age of the appellant as well as his avocation, we feel that there is justification in fixing his monthly income at Rs. 2,500/-. Undoubtedly, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant he might not have been able to go for work at least for a period of 8 months. That means the appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 20000/- as compensation for loss of earning. As the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under that head is only Rs. 9,000/-, we are awarding an additional amount of 11,000/- towards loss of earning.

As already noticed, the appellant was hospitalised for 59 days. As the accident was in the year 1999, he is entitled to get by stander''s expenses at the rate of Rs. 150 per day. That means, the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 8850/- towards by stander''s expenses. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal under that head is only 3000/-, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs. 5850/- towards by stander''s expenses.

The learned counsel for the appellant relying on Ext.A9 disability certificate would argue that though the appellant was having a residual disability of 7%, the learned Tribunal has not accepted the same and fixed his residual disability at 5%. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, per contra, would submit that Ext.A9 certificate was not properly proved. As the percentage for arriving at compensation for permanent disability was fixed by the learned Tribunal on seeing the condition of the appellant, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the percentage of disability. However, as we have revised the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability has to be reworked. When compensation for permanent disability is revised adopting the revised monthly income, it will stand enhanced to Rs. 25,500/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,300/- under that head, the appellant becomes entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 10200/-under the head compensation for permanent disability.

Thus in total, the appellant becomes entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 52050/- (10000+15000+11000+5850+10200) over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. only. We are of the view that there is justification for awarding interest at the rate of 7% on the original amount awarded by the learned Tribunal as well as the additional amount awarded by us. We do so. Thus, the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

The appeal is allowed and the award shall stand modified as above.