BY AD v. SRI.M.R.SASITH

BY ADV.SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.2040/2011 2 J U D G M E N T The appellant was the petitioner in O.P. (MV)No.1425 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam.

2. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 12.03.2005. According to him, the accident occurred when the motorcycle driven by him was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-9E-1737, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The second respondent was the owner of the said vehicle and it was insured with the third respondent. The appellant was 24 years old at the time of the accident and was a bus conductor with a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. According to him, he sustained very serious injuries and consequential physical disability. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. All the respondents resisted the claim petition. They denied the negligence on the part of the first respondent in driving the lorry. As far as the third respondent is concerned, they admitted the coverage of the policy. However, all the M.A.C.A.No.2040/2011 3 respondents disputed the quantum of compensation as well.

4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the appellant and no evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents.

5. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and being insurer of the vehicle, the third respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.1,81,173/- (Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand one hundred and seventy three only) and the third respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter @ 8% per annum till realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri.M.R.Sasith, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Raji.T.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

7. The only question involved in this case relates to the M.A.C.A.No.2040/2011 4 quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the lower side, which was opposed by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. After carefully going through the records, I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. As regards the monthly income, the Tribunal took only Rs.2,500/-, whereas the amount claimed was Rs.3,000/-. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2005, the amount of Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income claimed by the appellant, appears to be a reasonable amount, and the same can be accepted. It is discernible from the records that even though no disability certificate was produced, the Tribunal accepted the whole body disability of the appellant as 8%, and a lumpsum compensation of Rs.20,000/- was granted towards the permanent disablement. Since there is no challenge as to the assessment of permanent disability as 8%, the same can be accepted. This is particularly because the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, which are clearly mentioned in paragraph 8 of the award, indicates the probabilities of the appellant sustaining a disability of that M.A.C.A.No.2040/2011 5 nature. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation with the revised monthly income and with permanent disability of 8%, the amount would come to Rs.51,840/- [3000 x 12 x 18 x 8/100]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.20,000/- and thus, the additional amount would come to Rs.31,840/-.

8. Consequent to the revision of monthly income, the appellant would be entitled to an additional amount for loss of earnings. The Tribunal awarded compensation under the said head for a period of five months. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.2,500/- is awarded under the said head. The amount awarded under the head pain and suffering by the Tribunal was Rs.25,000/-. It is discernible from the records that the appellant sustained the following injuries in the accident: “Contusion on the right shoulder, right thigh, fracture of right clavicle, right femur, diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage, right basifrontal haemorrhagic contusion and mild diffuse cerebral oedema.”

9. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 25 days, and even after the discharge, he continued under treatment as an out-patient. In such circumstances, I deem it M.A.C.A.No.2040/2011 6 appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.5,000/- under the said head. Considering the nature of the injuries as mentioned above and the disability as well as the inconvenience that arises therefrom, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of discomforts and inconvenience is on the lower side. In such circumstances, a further sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the said head, particularly because of the fact that he sustained injuries at the young age of 25 years and he has to live with that throughout his life. Thus, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.64,340/- [25000+5000+31840+2500].

10. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 03.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. (MV).No.1425 of 2005 is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.64,340/- (Rupees sixty four thousand three hundred and forty only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal, with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the M.A.C.A.No.2040/2011 7 date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that, as the appeal was filed with a delay of 342 days, and the delay was condoned by this Court subject to the condition that enhancement of compensation shall not bear any interest for the period of delay, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company shall be at liberty to exclude the period of delay while computing the interest for the additional amount granted. It is further ordered that the claimant shall furnish details of the PAN card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable the appellants 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 fails to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/25.1.24