AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Joseph Francis, J.—M.A.C.A. No. 1497 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 446 of 2004 and M.A.C.A. No. 1575 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 448 of 2004 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Thrissur. The common case of the petitioners in both the O.P. (M.V.) s is briefly as follows. On 25.12.2002 while the petitioners in both the above O.P.(M.V.) s were travelling in a motor bike bearing Reg. No. KL 8-Q 7583 through the Kottappuram road at Thrissur, an autorikshaw bearing Reg. No. KL-8 P. 3420 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor bike as a result of which both the petitioners sustained serious injuries. First respondent was the owner and third respondent was the insurer of the autorikshaw. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2004 claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 448 of 2004 claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte in both the cases. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy of the autorikshaw and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive. Before the Claims Tribunal both the above O.P.(M.V.) s were tried jointly. No oral evidence was adduced from both the sides. Exts. A1 to 12 and B1 and B2 series were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- to the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2004 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 26-12-2004 till the date of deposit from respondents and the third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. In O.P.(M.V.) No. 448 of 2004 a compensation of Rs. 38,000/- was awarded to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 26.2.2004 till the date of realisation from respondents and the third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2004 filed M.A.C.A. No. 1497 of 2012 and the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 448 of 2004 filed M.A.C.A. No. 1575 of 2012.
Heard Learned Counsel for the appellants and Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded in both the above O.P.s is on the lower side and that the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company supported the common award.
In O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2004, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Considering the nature of injuries sustained and treatments undergone, Rs. 10,000/- can be awarded towards compensation for pain and suffering instead of Rs. 7,000/- awarded. Rs. 8,000/- can be awarded towards compensation for discomfort and inconvenience in the place of Rs. 3,000/- awarded. The compensation awarded under other heads is reasonable and therefore we are not interfering with that part of the award. Thus the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2004 is entitled to get Rs. 8,000/- as additional compensation.
The compensation awarded to the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 448 of 2004 under various heads is as follows:
Due to the accident the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 448 of 2004 sustained various injuries. Ext. A6 is the Accident Register cum Wound certificate. Ext. A7 is the Discharge summary and Ext. A8 series are medical bills pertaining to the treatment of the petitioner following the accident. Those documents reveal his admission at the West Fort Hospital, Thrissur on 25.12.2002 with lacerated wound 4x1x 0.5 cm. on Right knee and abrasions on left thigh and left leg. Fracture of right patella was diagnosed in further investigation. He was treated by cleaning and dressing, suturing, administration of antibiotics and analgesics and application of A.K. Slab. He was discharged on 30.12.2002 with advice to continue medication and to review. He was readmitted on 29-1-2003 for physiotherapy and was discharged on 31-1-2003. He was asked to continue medication. A sum of Rs. 5,536/- was also spent on treatment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and treatments undergone, Rs. 18,000/- can be awarded towards compensation for pain and suffering instead of Rs. 13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 12,000/- can be awarded towards compensation for discomfort and inconvenience in the place of Rs. 8,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Compensation awarded under other heads is reasonable and therefore we are not interfering with that part of the award. Thus the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.). No. 448 of 2004 is entitled to get Rs. 9,000/- as additional compensation.
Accordingly M.A.C.A. No. 1497 of 2012 is allowed in part and the appellant/petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2004 is allowed to realise Rs. 8,000/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 26-4-2004 till the date of deposit from respondents and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. However, the appellant cannot be entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation for 305 days which is the period of delay in filing the appeal. There is no order as to costs.
M.A.C.A. No. 1575 of 2012 is allowed in part and the appellant/petitioner is allowed to realise Rs. 9,000/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 26.4.2004 till the date of deposit from the respondents and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. However the appellant is not entitled to get interest for 312 days which is the delay in filing the appeal. There is no order as to costs.