Sivaram vs Suresh Babu S/o Ayyappan

Sophy Thomas, J

This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP (MV) No.909 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

On 23.03.2008 at 11.30 a.m, the appellant was knocked down by TN 37AH 5047 motorcycle and he sustained serious injuries including head injury. He was treated at Aswini Hospital, Thrissur and Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. He became permanently disabled due to the accident. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakh. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,23,698/- and that is under challenge.

The 1st respondent was the owner, 2nd respondent was the driver and 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending motorcycle. As per order in I.A No.1 of 2022, the 1st respondent was removed from the party array. The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending vehicle are not disputed by the insurer.

Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced from either side. Exts.A1 to A13 from the side of the appellant/claimant, Ext.B1, copy of insurance policy, from the part of the 3rd respondent/insurer, and Ext.X1 the Medical Board Certificate as court exhibit were marked.

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.

The appellant was a 65 year old coolie at the time of accident. He suffered serious injuries of fracture of frontal bone, nasal bone, zygomatic arch, tibia, fibula of left leg etc etc, and he was hospitalised for a total period of 55 days in various occasions. In the absence of evidence to prove his income, the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.2,500/-. Even going by the decision Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951), he was eligible to get his notional income fixed at Rs.6,500/- as the accident was in the year 2008. But, his own case is that, he was earning monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. So, we need not go beyond the income stated by the appellant/claimant. So, his monthly income could be fixed at Rs.3,500/-. The Tribunal took loss of earning for six months @ Rs.2,500/-. At the rate of Rs.3,500/-for six months, he is eligible to get Rs.21,000/-. On deducting Rs.15,000/- which was already paid, he is entitled to get the balance Rs.6,000/- as enhanced compensation under the head 'loss of earning'.

Towards bystander expenses, the appellant was given only Rs.100/- per day. As the accident was in the year 2008, Rs.200/-per day could be justified. So, for 55 days of hospitalisation, he is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.5,500/- under the head 'bystander expenses'.

For transportation expenses, the appellant was given only Rs.2,500/-. The discharge summaries produced by the appellant will show that, he was admitted in hospital on several occasions and every time he had to pay transportation expenses. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- more towards transportation expenses.

For extra nourishment, though he claimed Rs.15,000/-nothing was awarded by the Tribunal. He had suffered serious head injuries with numerous fractures and so, he might not have been able to take normal food. Considering that fact, this Court is inclined to award Rs.7,500/- towards extra nourishment.

Towards pain and sufferings, the appellant was given only Rs.20,000/-. Considering the serious injuries he had suffered, the period of hospitalisation and the procedures he had undergone, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more towards pain and sufferings.

Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board shows that, he had suffered 7% orthopedic disability and 95% hearing loss. According to the appellant, he became permanently disabled and his functional disability was 100%. For 7% permanent disability, he was eligible to get Rs.20,580/- (3500x12x7x7/100) when his monthly income is taken as Rs.3,500/-. He was paid only Rs.10,500/- and so, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.10,080/- under the head permanent disability.

Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- against his claim of Rs.2 lakh finding that, he suffered 95% hearing loss. Since he suffered that condition due to the accident, and it amounts to loss of amenity, he is eligible to get an addition of Rs.20,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.

The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be just and proper and it needs no interference.

Head of claim

Amount awarded by the Tribunal

Amount awarded in appeal

Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation

Loss of earning

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.21,000/-

Rs.6,000/-

Bystander expenses

Rs.5,500/-

Rs.11,000/-

Rs.5,500/-

Transportation expenses

Rs.2,500/-

Rs.7,500/-

Rs.5,000/-

Extra nourishment

-

Rs.7,500/-

Rs.7,500/-

Pain and sufferings

Rs.20,000/-

Rs.30,000/-

Rs.10,000/-

Permanent disability

Rs.10,500/-

Rs.20,580/-

Rs.10,080/-

Loss of amenities

Rs.30,000/-

Rs.50,000/-

Rs.20,000/-

Total

Rs.83,500/-

Rs.1,47,580/-

Rs.64,080/-

In the result, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.64,080/-as enhanced compensation.

The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs