Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013 7TH SRAVANA, 1935 MACA.No. 1614 of 2011 -------------------------- OPMV 748 2007 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- RICKSON, S/O VARUNNY, KARIPPERY HOUSE, KALAKKALLU DESOM P.O, VARAKKARA, AMBALLUR VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMANKUTTY, S/O PADMANABHAN, THONIYIL HOUSE, VARAKKARA.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHALAKUDY. R2 BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. 1614 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 1 t respondent is served. 2nd respondent appears through counsel.
2. This appeal arises from the award dated 28.04.2011 in OP (MV).No.748 of 2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (for short 'the Tribunal').
3. The appellant, while riding a motor cycle on 29.05.2005 was hit by an autorikshaw belonging to and ridden by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent, assessed compensation payable to the appellant at Rs.54,610/-, held the respondents liable and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.
4. Learned counsel submitted that income of the appellant fixed by the Tribunal and compensation awarded are low. Learned MACA.1614/11 2 counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that there is no scope for any further enhancement.
5. The appellant was aged 22 years at the relevant time, working as Electrician. As against his claim of Rs.4000/-, the Tribunal has fixed his monthly income at Rs.2000/-. Having regard to the age and occupation of the appellant, I am inclined to fix monthly income at Rs.2500/-.
6. Paragraph 6 of the award refers to the injuries the appellant suffered. It is stated that the appellant suffered abrasion over right lower leg and swelling and tenderness in the right lower leg. He underwent inpatient treatment for 16 days. He produced medical bills for treatment expenses. Ext.A8 is the certificate showing disability of the appellant at 5.72% for the whole body. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for disability taking disability as 3%.
7. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has failed to note that the appellant suffered fracture of shaft of tibia. I have gone through copy of wound certificate given to me and find that X-ray investigation revealed fracture of shaft of right tibia. MACA.1614/1”
8. Loss of earnings awarded by the Tribunal is only for two months (at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month). I found that monthly income of the appellant was Rs.2500/- as on date of accident. In view of nature of injuries the appellant suffered and period of treatment, it is likely that the appellant was not able to work for three months and suffered loss. Loss of earnings for three months at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month comes to Rs.7500/-. Less Rs.4000/- already awarded, additional compensation payable in that regard comes to Rs.3500/-.
9. Strictly as per the medical bills, Rs.18,270/- is awarded as treatment expenses. It is likely that the appellant was not able to procure and produce all the medical bills. Hence further sum of Rs.2500/- is awarded on that count.
10. Amount awarded for transportation and expenses for bystanders also appear to be low having regard to the number of visits the appellant had to make to the hospital and the period of inpatient treatment. Hence, a further sum of Rs.1500/- is allowed on those counts.
11. Compensation awarded for pain and suffering does not require MACA.1614/11 4 interference but, compensation awarded for disability does require. The Tribunal, fixing income of the appellant at Rs.2000/- per month and taking 3% as disability, has adopted multiplier of 17 and awarded 12,240/-. I found that monthly income of the appellant is Rs.2500/-. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2010 (2) KLT 80.[SC] ) multiplier to be adopted is 18. That brings compensation payable for disability to Rs.16,200/- (2500 x 12 x 18 x 3/100). Less Rs.12,240/- already awarded, additional compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.3960/-.
12. Compensation awarded for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life is Rs.3000/- and is on the lower side. As already stated, the appellant was aged only 22 years at the relevant time. I have also referred to the nature and site of fracture the appellant suffered. Hence a further sum of Rs.4000/- is awarded on that count. Additional compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.15,460/-. That amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part as under:- MACA.1614/11 5 i. In modification of the award dated 28.04.2011 in OP(MV).748 of 2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda the appellant is allowed to recover a further sum of Rs.15,460/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand, four hundred and sixty only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till recovery from the respondents. ii. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within two months from this day. iii.Parties shall suffer their cost in the appeal. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, Judge mrcs //true copy// P.A.ToJudge