Nizam vs The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollam-691001

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—A Madrasa Teacher who sustained fracture Trimalleolar (Rt) ankle in a road traffic accident is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and also by the finding of the Tribunal that to the extent of 20% there was negligence on his part also in the matter of accident. The Tribunal under the impugned award awarded a total compensation of Rs. 72,100/- as against the claim for Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, particularly the head of permanent disability is inadequate. It is also urged that towards loss of amenities, the appellant should have been awarded some compensation. It is further alleged that the finding that the appellant was negligent to the extent of 20% is wrong.

Sri. P. Pratheesh, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us on the basis of the grounds. Smt.Sarah Salvy the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company would resist the submission of Sri.Pratheesh and argue that the award passed is quite reasonable and there is no warrant for making any further awards of compensation.

Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the award and having made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence, particularly Ext.C1, the Disability Certificate issued by a Medical Board, we feel that the appellant is eligible for award of some more compensation.

We shall first deal with the appellant''s grievance regarding the finding that he was negligent to the extent of 20%. Even though Sri.Pratheesh argued that the above finding is not correct, we are not persuaded to accept the above argument. We sustain the finding that the appellant was negligent to the extent of 20%.

We shall now come to the question of compensation. It is found that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs. 2,500/-. According to us, the notional monthly income so fixed in the absence of cogent evidence is reasonable. At the same time, we feel that he should have been awarded compensation for loss of earning for four months. Hence, we award to him Rs. 2,500/- more under that head. Towards bystander''s expenses the appellant has been awarded only Rs. 1,400/- though he was in hospital for 12 days. We award to the appellant Rs. 1,000/-more towards that head.

Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, we feel that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- presently awarded towards pain and sufferings is inadequate. We award to the appellant Rs. 7,000/- more towards pain and sufferings. We are unable to approve the action of the learned Tribunal in having taken only 6% as the percentage of disability for the purpose of computing the disability compensation notwithstanding Ext.C1. According to us, the full percentage reported as per Ext.C1 should have been taken. When the disability compensation is re-computed that way, we award to the appellant Rs. 9,600/- more. It is seen that nothing was awarded towards compensation for loss of amenities. We are sure that on account of the injuries and subsequent convalescence the appellant had to be in bed and could not enjoy the pleasures of life for a considerably long period. We award to the appellant Rs. 10,000/- more towards loss of amenities. Thus in toto we award to the appellant Rs. 30,100/- over and above what is awarded by the Tribunal. As we have retained the percentage of contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the appellant, the appellant will be eligible for a further amount of Rs. 24,080/- over and above what is awarded to him by the Tribunal. The entire amount awarded to the appellant will carry interest at the rates specified in the award.