AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sophy Thomas, J
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP (MV) No.1403 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The appellant was a 45 year old lady and she met with a road traffic accident on 07.07.2007 while she was walking through the side of National Highway at Karivellur. KL-13L/3253 jeep driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down and she sustained injuries. She was rushed to Government Hosptal, Karivellur and from there she was referred to Thejaswini Hospital, Mangalore. Even after discharge, she was continuing her treatment. She approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.79,500/- and that is under challenge.
The 1st respondent was the driver, 2nd respondent was the owner and 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle.
The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending vehicle are not disputed by the insurer and so, the appeal is directed only against the insurer.
Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.
According to the appellant, she was a Sweeper in KSEB getting daily wages of Rs.25/-. After her sweeping work, she used to supply food items and she was earning additional income of Rs.150/- per day. Even then the Tribunal took her notional income as Rs.3,000/-. Going by Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951), since the accident was in the year 2007, she was eligible to get her notional income fixed at Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal considered loss of earning for four months. But, according to the appellant, she was hospitalised for 14 days, and even after discharge, she was continuing her treatment. Implants were removed only in the year 2009. So, according to her, for about one year, she lost her earning and the Tribunal failed to note that fact.
The appellant suffered bimalleolar fracture of left ankle with displacement. She had undergone ORIF in 2007 and she was re-admitted for implant removal in the year 2009. Considering these facts, this Court is inclined to award loss of earning for eight months @ Rs.4,500/- which will come to Rs.36,000/-. She was already awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earning. So, she is entitled to get the balance Rs.24,000/- towards enhanced compensation for loss of earning.
Towards bystander expenses, she was given only Rs.100/-per day for 14 days of hospitalisation. Since the accident was in the year 2007, she was eligible to get minimum of Rs.200/- per day, and so Rs.1,400/- is awarded towards enhanced compensation for bystander expenses.
For pain and sufferings, the claim of the appellant was Rs.20,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.16,000/-. Considering the nature of injury, the period of hospitalisation and the procedures she had undergone including open reduction and internal fixation, implant removal etc., this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/- and so, she is eligible to get the balance Rs.4,000/- as enhanced compensation for pain and sufferings.
Towards loss of amenities, the appellant was awarded only Rs.3,000/-. It is true that, she had not suffered any permanent disability due to the accident. Even then, as she had suffered fracture of left ankle with displacement and her treatment took more than one year, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- more, as enhanced compensation under the head loss of amenities.
The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and it needs no interference.+
Head of claim
Amount awarded by the Tribunal
Amount awarded in appeal
Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of earning
Rs.12,000/-
Rs.36,000/-
Rs.24,000/-
Bystander expenses
Rs.1,400/-
Rs.2,800/-
Rs.1,400/-
Pain and sufferings
Rs.16,000/-
Rs.20,000/-
Rs.4,000/-
Loss of amenities
Rs.3,000/-
Rs.5,000/-
Rs.2,000/-
Total
Rs.32,400/-
Rs.63,800/-
Rs.31,400/-
In the result, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.31,400/-(24000+1400+4000+2000) as enhanced compensation.
The respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/ 2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.