AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ramakrishnan, J.—Petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 1349/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant herein. The appellant preferred the 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. 1,90,200/- (wrongly shown as 1,90,000/- in the result portion of the award) on various heads as follows:
Transportation, hospitalisation, attendant expenses
Rs. 5,000/-
Extra nourishment & damage to clothings
Medical expenses
Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of earnings
Rs. 15,000/-
Pain and suffering
Rs. 25,000/-
For discomforts, inconveniences
Rs. 15,000/-
Permanent disability
Rs. 25,200/-
For future treatment or removal of implant
Rs. 5,000/-
Total
Rs. 1,90,200/-
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come up with this appeal.
Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Insurance Company.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working as an assistant in a document writer''s office and getting a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- and it was proved by producing Ext. A5 certificate and PW 2 was examined to prove that fact. But, the Tribunal has taken only Rs. 3,000/- as his monthly income, which is very low. The disability certificate issued by the medical board assessed the disability as 18%, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 25,200/- under the head ''permanent disability'', which is also on the lower side. The amounts awarded under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, medical expenses, transport to hospital, etc., are also on the lower side. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to enhancement on all heads.
On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects very correctly and awarded just compensation, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail.
The claim of the appellant in the claim petition was that he was working as an assistant in a document writer''s office and getting Rs. 4,000/- per month. But, in the proof affidavit, his claim was that he was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month. PW 2 was examined to prove Ext. A5 salary certificate. But, his evidence is not convincing regarding the actual income of the appellant. So, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in discarding the oral evidence of PW 2 and the documentary evidence Ext. A5 and notionally fixing monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- and that cannot be said to be on the lower side in the year 2002. We are not inclined to enhance the same as well.
The medical board assessed 18% disability. There is nothing on record to show that the disability to that extent had affected his earning capacity. But, considering the nature of disability mentioned in Ext. A7, we feel that 10% can be taken as the occupational disability for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head ''loss of earning capacity.'' So the appellant will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 46,800/- (3000 x 12 x 13 x 10%), instead of Rs. 25,200/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ''loss of earning capacity''. Though the appellant had a case that the entire medical bills produced were not accepted by the Tribunal, the award of the Tribunal would go to show that cogent reason has been given for not accepting certain bills and rightly awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head ''medical bills''. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, the amount awarded under the head ''discomfort and inconvenience'' is also on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/- under the heads ''Transportation, hospitalisation, attendant expenses, Extra nourishment and damage to clothings''. It is seen from the document produced that he was treated as in-patient for 37 days. So, we enhance the same to Rs. 7,000/- from Rs. 5,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance any amount under other heads as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and proper.
In all, the appellant will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 33,600/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is liable to deposit with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit that amount and also the difference of Rs. 200/- committed on calculation in the award of the Tribunal, within two months.
With the above modification of the award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.