AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No. 122 of 2002 on the file of the M.A.C.T. , Manjeri. The respondent herein is the second respondent in that Original Petition, which was filed u/s 166 of the M.V. Act.
The allegation is that on 20.9.2001 at about 10.30 a.m. while the petitioner was riding his motor cycle from Malappauram to Puthenpeedika, the jeep driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle, as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The second respondent is the Insurer. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 45,896/- as compensation together with interest at the rate or 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment from the respondent. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner filed this appeal.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent, Insurance Company.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is very meager. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the compensation is just and reasonable. The medical records shown that due to the accident the appellant sustained the following injuries.
Compound comminuted fracture Patella (L) penetrating knee, Fracture Fibula (R) 4, 7, 8th rib (L), Closed rupture, Lacerated wound (R) leg, (L) upper eyelid and Cerebral concussion.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings, which is very low. Considering the nature of the injuries and prolonged treatment undergone by the appellant, we are of the view that Rs. 5,000/- more is to be awarded towards pain and sufferings. Ext.A4 disability certificates shows that the appellant has impairment of physical function by 8% of left lower limb. The learned Counsel further submitted that no compensation was awarded towards compensation for loss of amenities in life.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Rs. 10,000/- has to be awarded towards compensation for loss of amenities in life. The compensation awarded under other heads are reasonable. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get Rs15,000/- as additional compensation. Interest can be realised at the rate of 7.5% in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court.
This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs. 15,000/- more as additional compensation from the respondent together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The appellant is also allowed to get interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal.