Jayesh K.P. vs Ramesh Narukavil Veedu, Cheravallykara, Kayamkulam and Others

Siri Jagan, J.—A poor victim of a motor vehicle accident, who suffered 100% disability on account of the accident, is the appellant herein. The accident was caused by an autorickshaw owned by the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The appellant filed O.P(MV) No. 1098/1998 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming a total compensation of Rs. 17 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,02,500/-. The appellant has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The appellant claims enhanced compensation under three heads. The first is regarding the compensation for disability and loss of earning capacity. The appellant contends that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 1,500/- and adopted a multiplier of 17. According to the appellant, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , for persons within the age group of 15 to 25 years, the operative multiplier should be 18. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged 21 years and therefore the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18 and not 17. The appellant claims enhancement of compensation on this count. The appellant also claimed Rs. 2,52,600/- towards expenses for a bystander for six years. After having accepted that the appellant was practically a vegetable, who would require the assistance of others even for his moving about for his daily routine, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 43,000/-under this head, is the grievance of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant points out that vouchers for the entire amount of Rs. 2,52,600/- were produced and proved through the persons who issued those vouchers and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in not accepting that evidence and awarding the said amount in full. Lastly, the appellant would contend that the appellant had spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs towards transportation expenses for taking the appellant to various hospitals, the compensation for which was restricted to only Rs. 5000/- by the Tribunal. According to appellant, when a person is suffering 100% disability and is practically a vegetable, for his transportation to various hospitals for his treatment by hiring vehicles, the appellant would certainly have spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in limiting the expenses for transportation to Rs. 5000/-.

We have heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also.

As far as the multiplier is concerned, the issue is settled in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra). Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the appropriate multiplier to be adopted in this case is 18. Accordingly, for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity, the appellant was entitled to Rs. 3,24,000/- as compensation (1500 x 12 x 18) instead of Rs. 3,06,000/- awarded by Tribunal. On this count, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 18,000/-.

The Tribunal itself found that the appellant is practically a vegetable now, who cannot move above without the help of others, even for his daily routine. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that he would be entitled to the assistance of a bystander throughout the rest of his life. Of course, for the period till 2004, the appellant had claimed Rs. 2,52,600/- under this head. For 72 months, it would come to roughly Rs. 3500/- p.m. Although the appellant led evidence in respect of the same, we are not able to accept the same fully, since the notional income fixed for the appellant is only Rs. 1500/- p.m. Nobody can expect a person earning only Rs. 1500/- to employ bystanders spending Rs. 3500/- p.m. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that the amounts were spent by his parents and other relatives. No evidence has been led in respect of the income of the parents. Admittedly, now the father of the appellant is no more and the mother is not an earning member of the family. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to take the expenses for a bystander as Rs. 1000/- p.m. Calculated on that basis, for the period up to 2004, the appellant would be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 72,000/-. He has been paid only Rs. 43,000/-. He will be entitled to Rs. 29,000/- more under this head.

The claim for bystander cannot be restricted to till 2004 insofar as, admittedly, for the rest of his life, the appellant would be a vegetable. Since law prescribes that the compensation has to be calculated for 18 years (since the multiplier is 18), compensation under this head also cannot be given for more than 18 years. The appellant will therefore be entitled to payment of compensation under this head for 12 more years. That amount would come to Rs. 72,000/-. The appellant would be entitled to that amount also.

Considering the fact that from the date of the accident the appellant was totally bedridden, the appellant would have incurred heavy expenses for transportation to various hospitals. Rs. 5,000/- under this head is very low. We are inclined to fix it at Rs. 25,000/-. Under this head, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 20,000/- more. Adding together, under the various heads narrated above, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,39,000/-. The said amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The respondents are liable to pay the said amount. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within two months.

The appeal is disposed of as above.