Toms Joseph vs Noushad and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—Petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 324/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, is the appellant herein. The appellant preferred a claim for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle by the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle as well, and insured with the 2nd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- on various heads as follows:

Loss of earnings for one month

Rs. 3,000/-

Transport to hospital

Rs. 500/-

Extra nourishment

Rs. 500/-

Medical expenses

Rs. 3,500/-

Damage to clothing

Rs. 500/-

Bystander''s expenses

Rs. 1,500/-

Compensation for pain and suffering

Rs. 8,000/-

Total

Rs. 17,500/-

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come before this Court with the above appeal.

Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Insurance Company.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, he sustained two fractures and he was under treatment for long time. But the Tribunal has taken only one month for loss of earning. The amount awarded under the head ''pain and suffering'' is also on the lower side. No amount was awarded under the head ''amenities in life''. Therefore, according to the appellant, the appellant is entitled to enhancement on all heads.

On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.

We have considered the rival contention of both parties in detail.

Though counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was an electrician by profession and getting Rs. 7,500/- per month, no evidence was adduced to prove that fact. He did not go to the witness box. On the other hand, his wife, on the strength of power of attorney, was examined to prove the claim of the appellant. So, in the absence of evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to prove his income or occupation, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income of Rs. 3,000/-, which cannot be said to be on the lower side, in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant sustained contusion pelvis, contusion (L) knee, mild defuse cerebral oedema, nasal bone fracture and foot fracture. He was treated as an in-patient for six days. Since he sustained two fractures, he could not have worked at least for two months. But the Tribunal has taken only one month for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head ''loss of earnings'' for the period of treatment. We take it as two months and award Rs. 6,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head. Considering the nature of injury sustained, the amount awarded under the head ''pain and suffering'' is also on the lower side and we enhance it to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 8,000/-. No amount was awarded under the head ''loss of amenities in life''. Considering the fact that he sustained mild defuse cerebral oedema, nasal bone fracture and foot fracture, this may have some impact in future of his life as well and that will affect his personal life also. So, considering the circumstances, we feel that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- can be awarded under that head. The appellant is not entitled to enhancement on other heads and the amount awarded under other heads is just and proper. In all, the appellant will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit, with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment, within two months.

With the above modification of the award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.