United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Syed Mahaboob since deceased by L.Rs. and Another

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 2283 of 1992 sustained fracture of fibula in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioner died during the pendency of the petition and for the reason other than the injuries sustained in the accident. The wife and children of the petitioner have come on record. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,71,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till payment.

The Tribunal has granted compensation towards loss of income on account of disability. The entire approach of the Tribunal in assessing the compensation is totally erroneous. The Full Bench of this Court in Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager, , has held that in case of death of a petitioner who has sustained personal injuries for the reasons other than the injuries sustained in the accident, the legal representatives are entitled only to the compensation for the loss to estate. The medical expenses and the incidental expenses and loss of income during the laid up period are the one to be considered as loss to estate. Petitioner has sustained fracture of fibula. It is reasonable to assess that petitioner would have spent Rs. 25,000 towards medical expenses and incidental expenses relating to treatment.

The deceased is a driver. His income to be assessed at Rs. 3,000 p.m. It is reasonable to assess that the deceased was out of employment for about 9 months on account of the treatment. Therefore, for loss of wages during laid up period Rs. 27,000 could be granted. In all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 52,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till payment as against Rs. 1,71,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal of the insurer is allowed as indicated above.

There is a delay of almost 922 days in filing the cross-objection.

The cross-objection is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and on merits.