EDWARD RAJ Vs. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise as a result of an accident which occurred on 23/1/2009, wherein a lorry hit against a jeep in which the appellants were travelling causing the jeep to overturn and resulting in injury to the appellants. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2013 had preferred OP(MV) No.101 of 2010 and the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1778 of 2013 had preferred OP(MV) No.107 of 2010 before the Tribunal. Both the petitions were tried together and were disposed of by a common award. Aggrieved by the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed these appeals claiming enhanced compensation. The facts are stated with reference to the appeals.

(2.) M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2013:- The appellant was a daily-wager aged 38 years and claimed to have been earning around Rs.6,000.00 per month at the time of the accident. He suffered multiple fractures in the ribs on the left-hand side, fracture transverse process L3, L4, tendon injury (R) hand, machine nero repair (R) hand, STS direct closer, multiple fracture(L) 2,3,4,5,6, Logus tendon injury (R) hand and complained of pain and tenderness all over the body. He had to be hospitalised for 19 days. The Medical Board examined him and as per Exhibit X1 disability certificate, he was assessed to have a disability of 48%. The Tribunal calculated compensation by taking a notional income of Rs.3,500.00 per month and treating the disability as 30%. The counsel for the appellant contended that there was no reason for the Tribunal to treat the notional income as Rs.3,500.00 and that going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the claim of Rs.6,000.00 as monthly income ought to have been accepted. It is also submitted that there was no reason for scaling down the disability from 48% to 30%. Another contention that is taken is that having regard to the injury suffered and the fact that the appellant was hospitalised for 19 days, the Tribunal went wrong in not allowing any amount towards loss of amenities and it is further submitted that going by the evidence on record the Tribunal ought to have granted loss of earning for 12 months and not for 8 months.

(3.) M.A.C.A.No.1778 of 2013 :- The appellant, a daily wager aged 30 years at the time of the accident, claimed to have been receiving Rs.6,000.00 as monthly income. He suffered lacerated wound over the right wrist, over the right knee, on the scalp, on the right forearm and Type II open fracture DER (R) Bennet's fracture Dn (R) and complained of pain and tenderness all over the body. He had to remain in the hospital for 14 days. The Medical Board assessed disability of 22%. The Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs.3,500.00 and scaled down the disability to 12% to arrive at the compensation payable. The counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional income as Rs.3,500.00 and ought to have adopted Rs.6,000.00 as monthly income. It is further submitted that there was no reason to scale down the disability from 22% to 12%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the amount of Rs.50,000.00 claimed towards pain and suffering instead of reducing it to Rs.20,000.00. Another contention taken is that the Tribunal disallowed treatment expenses, which is not justified in the light of Exhibit A17 medical bills. The Tribunal has not stated any reason for not granting the medical expenses, so also no amount has been granted towards loss of amenities.