AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Siri Jagan, J.—The claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 681/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, is the appellant herein. He suffered serious injuries in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle driven and owned by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. He filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by him in the accident. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, assessed compensation under various heads as follows:
Transport to the hospital
Rs. 500/
Damage to clothing
Rs. 250/
Extra nourishment and bystander''s expenses
Rs. 5,900/
For review (6 times)
Rs. 600/
Pain and suffering
Rs. 20,000/
Medical bills
Rs. 1,53,373/
Loss of income for 10 months @ 3,000/ per month
Rs. 30,000/
Future treatment
Rs. 5,000/
For disfigurement
Rs. 4,000/
For disability (36000 x 2 x 17/100)
1,22,400/
Total
Rs. 3,42,023/
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.
The first contention of the appellant is that although the appellant had produced a salary certificate proving the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 6,500/-, the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed the income only as Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The second contention is that although the appellant was hospitalized for 59 days, for extra nourishment and bystander''s expenses, only Rs. 5,900/- was awarded, which is on the lower side. The further contention of the appellant is that no amount has been awarded for loss of amenities in life despite Ext. A1 disability certificate certifying 20% disability.
We have heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also.
We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
In the absence of any proof regarding the monthly salary of the appellant except a certificate issued by a private employer, we are not inclined to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- in 2003. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal. Of course, for 59 days hospitalization, the appellant is entitled to bystander''s expenses alone of Rs. 59,000/-. That being so, the composite compensation awarded for extra nourishment and bystander''s expenses of Rs. 5,900/- is on the lower side. Therefore, we award Rs. 1000/- more under this head. We also find that despite accepting 20% disability, the Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of amenities. We award Rs. 10,000/- under this head. We are not inclined to interfere with the compensation under the other heads.
Consequently, over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 11,000/- as additional compensation. This amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit that amount also within two months.
With the above modification of the award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.