SHIJUMON Vs. GEORGE ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 08/07/2003. The claimant was a person aged 18 years at the time of the accident. He was a student at the relevant time. He was attending Industrial Training Centre. It is his case that while attending the institution, he was also earning income as a rubber tapper. He suffered multiple serious injuries including head injury as a result of the accident. He allegedly suffered substantial personal disability as a result of the accident. He is unable to move from bed even now. He was produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal personally observed and verified his alleged disability. He was sent to a medical board under Ext. XI which reported that the claimant was substantially disabled to the extent of 75%. The claimant is not able to respond. He has preferred the claim petition and this appeal through his mother. Initially, the claim was staked before the Tribunal through his father. His expired during the pendency of the proceedings and now he is being represented by his mother.

(2.) AGAINST the total claim of Rs.9 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.4,54,500/- as per the details given in paragraph 14 of the impugned award which we extract below: SI.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1. Medical expenses Rs.72,000.00 2. Transport to hospital Rs.2,000.00 3.Extra nourishment Rs.5,000.00 4. Damage to clothing Rs.500.00 5. Bystander expenses Rs.27,000.00 6. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000.00 7. Compensation for continuing disability and loss of earning power (2000 x 12 x 16 x 75/100) Rs.2,88,000.00 8. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000.00 9. Expenses for future treatment Total Rs.10,000.00 Rs.4.54.500.00 The insurance company is made-entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award.

(3.) IT is next contended that the Tribunal was not justified in reckoning only Rs.2000/- as the monthly income. Though it was claimed that while learning, the claimant was also earning by working as a part time rubber tapper, the Tribunal found no evidence in support of that assertion. But even in the absence of any evidence, we find it absolutely reasonable to assume that Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the probable income of the appellant. In coming to this conclusion, we note that the appellant is a person aged 18 years. He claims that he has been employed as a part time rubber tapper. He was a student of the Industrial Training Centre. The probability of his securing more lucrative and better employment must certainly be borne in mind. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we find it absolutely safe to reckon Rs.3000/- as the multiplicand. 16 has been accepted by the Tribunal as the multiplier and that is perfectly justified by the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.