N.H. Munas vs Biju Mohammed and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, JOS Annexe, JOS Junction, Cochin-682016

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant, an accountant in a private firm complains that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for the following injuries sustained by him - closed fracture to the shaft of left femur and middle third, lacerated wound over left ankle, left forearm and on the right leg. The appellant was hospitalised for a total period of 22 days. As against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded only a sum Rs.75,600/- under various heads. Through the grounds in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant urges that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads is quite inadequate and also that towards continuing discomforts, he should have been awarded some compensation taking into account the gravity of the injuries suffered by him. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and those of Mr. George Cherian, learned standing counsel for the insurance company. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded is inadequate, the standing counsel''s submission was that the compensation is quite reasonable. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the impugned award. We feel that the appellant is eligible for some more compensation.

Admittedly, the appellant worked, as accountant in a private firm. According to us, the notional monthly income of Rs.2,000/- adopted by the learned Tribunal is low. We adopt the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,500/-. We also feel that towards loss of earnings, the appellant could have been awarded compensation for six months. When the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.2,500/- for six months, the appellant will become eligible to get Rs.5,000/- more towards loss of earnings than what is presently awarded.

We find that the learned Tribunal towards various heads such as transportation, hospitalisation, attendant expenses, extra nourishment and damage to clothing, has awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is a case where the appellant was in hospital for 22 days. We are sure that the appellant is eligible for enhancement towards these heads. Hence, we award to the appellant Rs.4,000/- more, as total compensation towards the above heads. Towards pain and suffering, the appellant was awarded only Rs.15,000/-. When the seriousness of the injuries are noticed, the appellant is eligible for Rs.5,000/- more towards this head. We award to the appellant the above sum. Towards loss of amenities in life and enjoyment and comforts, the appellant has been awarded only Rs.8,000/-by the learned Tribunal. We award to the appellant Rs.4,000/- more as we find inadequacy.

Even though, no disability certificate was produced by the appellant, we see that the nature of injuries sustained are such that the appellant will have to undergo continuing discomfort almost for the rest of his life. We, therefore, award to the appellant Rs.8,000/- more than what was awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, in total we award to the appellant Rs.26,000/-, over and above what was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The additional amount awarded will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. However, we are not interfering with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the contribution of the Driver of the vehicle which was insured with the second respondent company in the accident was only 50%. There will be a direction that in the original compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by us under this judgment, the liability of the second respondent company will be to pay only 50%.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. No costs.