Sundaran vs Rajesh B. Nair

Johnson John, J

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 1349 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

According to the petitioner, while he was traveling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle on 24.06.2016, the rider of the motorcycle applied sudden brake in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent was the rider of the motorcycle and 2nd respondent was the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent was the insurer.

Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A10 and X1 were marked and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,63,000/- to the petitioner.

Heard Rakesh K., the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ajesh Emmanuel, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company.

According to the appellant, at the time of the accident, he was aged 45 years and working as a coolie. In the absence of any evidence to prove the income, the Tribunal fixed Rs.11,000/- as notional income. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.10,500/- as the accident occurred in the year 2016.

Since the Tribunal has already fixed Rs.11,000/- as notional income, I find no reason to interfere with the notional income fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the compensation.

As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Manjeri, the appellant sustained 45% disability. After analyzing the nature of injuries and problems noted in Exhibit X1 disability certificate, the Tribunal accepted 45% disability for the purpose of calculating compensation towards loss of earning capacity and also added 25% towards future prospects. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,65,250/- to the petitioner towards loss of earning power and I find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of amenities and that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.40,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and the same is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and disability, Rs.25,000/- is granted to the appellant as compensation towards loss of amenities and an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is granted to the appellant under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. I find that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads are reasonable and requires no interference.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation as given below:

Particulars

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)

Additional amount

granted by this Court

(Rs.)

Loss of amenities

NIL

25,000/-

Pain and sufferings

40,000/-

10,000/-

Total enhanced compensation

35,000/-

Thus, a total amount of Rs.35,000/-/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till realization. The appellant would also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case.  The claimant shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount.

The appeal is allowed in part as above.