Joy Mathew vs K.A. Thankappan, Kalapurackal House, Karimannoor P.O. and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Thodupuzha

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant who was running an electronic shop sustained the following serious injuries when the motorcycle in which he was pillion riding capsized on account of the negligence of the rider:-

Abrasion over posterior aspect of left elbow.

Pain and swelling over left knee with haemothiosis.

Avulsing the anterior cruciate ligament left knee along with intercontyle eminence of tibia.

The motorcycle was duly insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. The grievance of the appellant is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for the injuries which he sustained in the accident. His claim was for a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The learned Tribunal allowed him only Rs. 30,375/- on various heads together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. According to the appellant there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal under all the heads.

We have heard the submissions of Smt. C.M. Charisma, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. A.R. George, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

Smt. Charisma''s submission was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded to the appellant whereas Sri. George submitted that there is no such inadequacy. The appellant had suppressed material facts and had given a distorted version of the facts in the OP, according to Sri. George.

Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having examined the impugned award in detail, we are of the view that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal. Having seen the nature of injuries, we are of the view that the appellant should have been awarded Rs. 5,000/- more towards pain and suffering. We therefore award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards pain and suffering.

We notice some inadequacy in the compensation awarded to the appellant towards bystander''s expenses. We therefore award to the appellant Rs. 900/- more towards bystander''s expenses.

The learned Tribunal adopted the monthly income of the appellant notionally at Rs. 1,500/- per month. We are of the view that there is justification for adopting the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,000/- per month. We award to the appellant loss of earnings for three months which means that we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 3,000/- more towards loss of earnings.

In the absence of any disability certificate no disability compensation has been awarded to the appellant. However, having seen the nature of injuries, we are sure that on account of these injuries, the appellant had discomforts which continued for a long period of his life. In view of those discomforts, we award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- as lump sum compensation. Thus in all the appellant becomes entitled to get a sum of Rs. 13,900/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.