P.V. Shahul Hameed and Others vs N. Sanal Kumar and Others

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—The appellant is the owner of the vehicle in both the cases. In O.P. (MV.) No. 500 of 1980 Rs. 70,100/- was awarded as compensation whereas in O.P. 501 of 1980 Rs. 14,000/- was awarded.

Contention of the appellant is that there is no material or cogent reason to hold that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent and that the Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent in both the cases were really rash and negligent and contributed to the incident. The quantum of compensation awarded is also challenged by the appellant. Cross objections were filed by the first respondent in both the cases (claimants) on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and warrants interference by this Court.

Petitioner in O.P. 500 of 1980 deposed that he is a businessman earning an income of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He also stated that he was studying for C.A. Examination. No convincing evidence was produced to prove as to what was the exact income he was deriving from the firm, where he was working. The partnership deed was also not produced. However, the Tribunal held that he must be getting not less than Rs. 1,000/- as income per month. The Medical Board assessed the permanent disability at 45%. Taking into account the permanent disability assessed by the Medical Board the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 57,600/- as compensation towards permanent partial disability and loss of earning power. Petitioner claimed Rs. 28,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. It is in evidence that he was hospitalised for about four months. Ext. A3 shows that he has sustained grievous injuries. Considering that fact the Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be just and sufficient compensation under the head of pain and suffering. Towards transport charges the claim of Rs. 730/- was also allowed. Petitioner also claimed Rs. 7,500/- by way of medical expenses and Rs. 3,500/- as expenses incurred for by standers etc. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- as medical expenses and a sum of Rs. 750/- as expenses for by-standers etc. was found to be reasonable by the Tribunal and that sum was awarded. The Tribunal was justified in holding that as no bill was produced in support of the claims towards medical expenses and expenses for by-standers the above amounts would be reasonable. Thus, in all the Tribunal held that the petitioner in O.P. 500 of 1980 is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 70,100/- as compensation. Considering the entire aspects of the matter we hold that the tribunal was justified in awarding the aforesaid amount as compensation. We also do not finds any merit in the cross-objection in MFA 536/1983, especially in view of the fact that the Tribunal has considered all aspects of the matter in quantifying the compensation amount. The award passed in favour of the petitioner in O.P. 500 of 1980 is only reasonable and that it does not warrant interference by this Court.

In O.P. 501 of 1980 the award passed was for an amount of Rs. 14,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 25-6-1980 till realisation. Petitioner in O.P. 501 of 1980 is employed as an Agricultural Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank. He admitted that on account of the accident he did not lose any part of his earning power. So the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of Rs. 20,000/- made for loss of earning power cannot be allowed. It is his evidence that he sustained fracture of right femur. 10% disability has been assessed by the Medical Board as per Ext. A-9. The petitioner examined as P.W.2 deposed that he can drive motor cycle though there is some difficulty- Taking into account the permanent partial disability of 10% the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation. Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering. Transport charge was awarded at Rs. 750/-. Expenses for medicines and by standers were determined at Rs. 1,250/-. Thus in all Rs. 14,000/- was awarded as compensation. Considering the nature of the injuries and Ext. A-9 it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in quantifying the total compensation as Rs. 14,000/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said award. The cross objection do not merit consideration.

The Tribunal has granted only 6% interest in both the cases. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is too low and therefore it requires modification. Counsel submitted that in several decisions the Supreme Court has awarded interest at 12% and following the Supreme Court decisions this Court has also granted 12% interest on the amount awarded. As the Supreme Court has granted 12% interest in several cases we hold that the award of the Tribunal has to be modified to that limited extent.

The award of the Tribunal is modified to the limited extent of awarding interest at 12% per annum on the amount awarded from 25-6-1980 till realisation. The Appeals are dismissed. Subject to the modification in the rate of interest the cross objections are partly allowed. There is no order as to costs.