BY AD v. R.SANJITH

Heard Sri. Sanjith, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Achyut K. Padmaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company.

7. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the inadequacy in the quantum of compensation. It is seen from the records that, the injury sustained by the appellant as mentioned in Ext.A5 wound certificate was “contusion inter scapular region and right knee”. According to the appellant consequent to the injuries he was compelled to avail leave on loss of pay for a total period of 170 days in addition to loss of bonus at the rate of 11.67%. However, considering the nature of M.A.C.A. No.1562/2012 : 4 : injuries sustained, availing of leave for such a period consequent to the same is highly improbable. Similarly, the learned counsel also pointed out that, even though Ext.A10 certificate was issued by the District Ayurveda Hospital, Ernakulam was produced, the same was not accepted by the tribunal on the ground that, the physical disability certified was very high. On going through the materials placed on record and the nature of injuries as is discernible from Ext.A5, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal as it appears to be probable. Even though Ext.A10 was produced, no one was examined to prove the contents thereof, and besides the same, the nature of injuries mentioned therein are very vague as well. Therefore I do not find any reason to accept the same. In such circumstances, the claim of the appellant regarding the loss of pay of 170 days cannot be accepted. However, even though the injury was minor, he must have been prevented from doing his avocation for a short period and for the purpose of compensation, I deem it appropriate to fix it as 15 days. It is evident from Ext.A15 certificate that he was a casual employee engaged for a wage of Rs.170/- per day. Therefore, towards loss of earning an amount of Rs.2,550/- is M.A.C.A. No.1562/2012 : 5 : awarded. (170x15).

8. When moving on to the other heads, taking note of the injuries sustained, I am of the view that, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- can be granted under the head of pain and sufferings. Similarly, the amount loss of amenities granted was Rs.2000/- and taking note of the entire materials, I deem it appropriate to grant a more further sum of Rs.5000/-. Thus the additional compensation is determined as Rs.12,550/-.

9. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 06.06.2011 in OP(MV) No.2271/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.12,550/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred and fifty only) and the same amount is directed to be deposited with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that, as the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal was condoned subject to the condition that, the additional, if any, awarded would not carry interest for the delay, the 3rd respondent shall be at liberty to M.A.C.A. No.1562/2012 : 6 : exclude the said period of delay while computing the interest on the additional compensation. It is further ordered that the appellant/claimant shall furnish the details of the PAN card, Aadhar card and bank details to enable the respondent to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, he fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. ncd/ Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE