THOMAS MATHEW Vs. RENJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was originally filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, seeking enhanced compensation. Pending the appeal, the claimant died and his legal legal representatives have been impleaded as additional 2nd and 3rd appellants.

(2.) On 6/1/2009, the claimant was travelling as a pillion behind the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent lost control over the motorcycle and hit against an electric post, resulting in serious injuries to the claimant. The claimant was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and thereafter he was referred to the Indo-American Hospital, Vaikom for expert management. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered left frontal contusion, compound depressed fracture of left frontal bone, left temporal bone fracture, fracture of roof and lateral wall of left orbit, fracture of medial and lateral wall of left maxillary sinus, increased left frontal hemorrhagic contusion with brain swelling, loss of vision of left eye and continuing epilepsy. He was treated as inpatient for 30 days. He was again hospitalised on two different occasions. The Medical Board in Exhibit X1 disability Certificate assessed his disability as 84%. The claimant was present before the Tribunal on 3/6/2012. He was brought with the help of two persons as he could not move freely without the help of bystanders. The Tribunal noticed that the claimant cannot speak in the usual manner. The claimant was aged 24 years at the time of the accident and he was a manual labourer. After noticing the nature of the injury and the condition of the claimant, the Tribunal however fixed the disability at 60%, which is challenged in this appeal. The claimant had claimed that he was earning Rs.6,000.00 as monthly income. However, the Tribunal adopted a monthly income of Rs.4,500.00, which needs to be enhanced going by the yardstick in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951]. The claimant was completely paralysed and he was being represented through his mother as next friend. He died on 3/6/2014. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in awarding Rs.25,000.00 alone towards compensation for future bystanders expenses. It is further submitted that the disability should have been treated as 100% and the compensation towards permanent disability has to be reworked, applying the income of Rs.6,000.00 per month. Though, I find considerable force in the above submission, taking into account the fact that the claimant died pending the proceedings, I am of the opinion that it would be just to adopt the disability of 84% assessed by the Medical Board. It is also submitted that the appellants are entitled to have the income increased by future prospects. Since it was found that the driver of the 2 wheeler did not have a driving license, the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the 1st respondent.

(3.) The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the death happened 5 years after the accident, and there was nothing to show that the death was owing to the accident. It is further submitted that the compensation for permanent disability should be restricted to 5 years and the multiplier of 18 should not have been adopted. The counsel further argued that the compensation for loss of amenities that has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.