SHAJU T.P v. SUBEESH

Heard Adv.Sri. Sheji P. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.Sri. A.R. George, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

8. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable or not. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads are very meager and the same was opposed by the learned counsel for 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurance company submitted that a reasonable amount has been awarded, taking into account all the aspects, and no interference is warranted.

9. After carefully gone through the records, I find that there is some force in the contentions put forward by MACA NO. 1501 OF 2013 ..5.. the learned counsel for the appellant. The first aspect to be noticed is the monthly income of the appellant. Even though an amount of Rs.6,000/- was claimed as monthly income, which he was earning from his avocation as a gold worker, the Tribunal accepted the same as Rs.4,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount appears to the on the lower side. It is to be noted that the accident occurred in the year 2008. Of course it is true that there is no evidence adduced by the appellant to substantiate the monthly income of his avocation. However, when the method of computation of monthly income evolved from the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa’s V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735], is adopted, the amount of Rs.6,000/- as claimed by the appellant cannot be treated as unreasonable under any circumstances, in view MACA NO. 1501 OF 2013 ..6.. of the fact that the accident occurred in 2008. Therefore, the said monthly income is accepted for assessing the compensation.

10. The next aspect relates to the extent of disability. In this case, Ext.A1 disability certificate was produced by the appellant, which was proved by examining PW1 the Doctor who issued the said certificate. In the said certificate, the Doctor certified the neurological disability as 25%, and considering the orthopaedic disability as well, the whole body disability suffered by the appellant was determined as 20%. The said aspects were asserted by PW1 while he was examined before the court. Since the Ext.A1 certificate is amply proved by examining the author of the said certificate, I deem it appropriate to accept the same and adopt the percentage of disabilities of 20% certified therein, even though the Tribunal accepted it as only 18%. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation in the above revised criteria, the amount payable under the head of disability would come to MACA NO. 1501 OF 2013 ..7.. Rs.2,16,000/- [6000 X 12 X 15 X 20/100]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,29,600/- and thus, the additional compensation would come to Rs.86,400/-.

11. The next aspect is compensation for loss of earnings. The tribunal granted compensation under this head for a period of five months. Considering the nature of injuries and disabilities suffered by him, the said period appears to be reasonable, and therefore, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head consequent to the revision of monthly income.

12. The next heads which require consideration are pain and suffering and loss of amenities, in which the amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.18,000/- and Rs.16,000/- respectively. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the injuries suffered are serious in nature, and as a consequence of the same, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 57 days. The nature of the injuries also resulted in the fading of memory, fading of eye sight and he had chronic MACA NO. 1501 OF 2013 ..8.. headaches as well. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the additional compensation is to be awarded under both the heads referred to above, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant an additional sums of Rs.22,000/- and Rs.24,000/- respectively.

13. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for extra nourishment. It is discernible from the records that he had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 57 days, and even after discharge, his treatment continued for a considerable period. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment.

14. Accordingly, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.1,45,400/- (Rs.86,400/- + 10,000/- + 22,000/- + 24,000/- + 3,000/-).

15. In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the award dated 21.05.2013 in OP(MV)No.1671 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of MACA NO. 1501 OF 2013 ..9.. Rs.1,45,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five thousand Four Hundred only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. LU Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A, JUDGE