Thomas Mathew vs Kochumon Antony S/o Antony Varghese

T.R. Ravi, J

The appellant, an Agriculturalist, who claimed to be earning ₹7,000/- per month, was hit by a motorcycle driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, while he was standing on a footpath, on 09.04.2007. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised for 11 days. He preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking ₹4,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹35,500/- as compensation. The appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

Heard Sri A.T.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Sukumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

The 1st contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting ₹3,000/- per month as the notional income of the appellant. The appellant was aged 56 years at the time of the accident. Since the accident took place in 2007, going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the notional income ought to have been taken as at least ₹6,000/- per month. The claim in that regard is justified. The amount hence awarded towards loss of earnings for 3 months has to be increased by a sum of ₹9,000/-. The appellant has also claimed additional compensation under the conventional heads like bystanders expenses and extra nourishment. Since the appellant was in hospital for 11 days and providing for bystanders expenses and extra nourishment at the rate of ₹200/- per day each, the appellant will be entitled to ₹2,200/- under both the heads. After deducting the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional sum of ₹1,100/- towards bystanders expenses and ₹1,200/- towards extra nourishment.

Another contention of the appellant is that the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities are very less. The evidence on record shows that the appellant had suffered blunt injury abdomen and that splenectomy and bowel resection was done. Exploratory laparotomy surgery was also done. It is noticed that there was bleeding in the peritoneal cavity and several other injuries. Considering the nature of the injuries, the surgery that the appellant had to undergone and 11 days hospitalisation, I am of the opinion that the appellant should be awarded a sum of ₹30,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferings and ₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities. After deducting the amount of ₹10,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of ₹20,000/- under that head. After deducting the amount of ₹5,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a sum of ₹15,000/- under the head loss of amenities.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is awarded an enhanced compensation of ₹46,300/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (04.12.2007) till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs. The appeal was filed with a delay of 83 days. By order dated 09.03.2021, this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal on condition that the appellants will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation which may be awarded by this Court for the period of 83 days. The interest payable on the enhanced compensation shall be hence excluding the period of 83 days. The 3rd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellants shall be in accordance with law.