UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUHARA PACKAYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the insurer who was the 3rd respondent in OP(MV)No.845/2012 before the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent while standing by the side of a road was hit by a car causing serious injuries. She preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and by award dated 30.07.2014, the Tribunal ordered a compensation of Rs.4,65,948/-with interest at 9%. The first contention of the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal has granted excessive amount under the head "pain and suffering" by granting Rs.50,000/-. Another contention is that amount has been granted for future treatment as Rs.20,000/-, even though the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was no evidence available on record regarding the necessity for future treatment. The third contention is that after granting compensation under the head 'disability', no further amount could have been granted for compensation for "loss of earning power" going by the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Hariprasad reported in [2005 (4) KLT 977]. Reference is also made to the decision in T.N.Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya and Ors. reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 236] to submit that the prevailing rate of interest should have been taken into account and only interest @ 7.5% ought to have been granted.

(2.) Heard Sri Mathew Jacob, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Jacob Mathew on behalf of the appellant and Smt. K.N.Rajani on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) It can be seen that the respondent had suffered fracture of the 2nd to 7th ribs on the left side, trimalleolar fracture right with ankle subluxation, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami, fracture of olecranon right elbow, 3 part fractures of proximal humerus with severe communution, acetabulum fracture right anterior column plus anterior wall, lacerated wound on the right ankle, forehead and right elbow, punctured wound at the forehead, lacerated wound on the chin, abrasion on the face and extremities. The monthly income was fixed at Rs.4,000/- for the reason that the respondent was a house wife. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, General Hospital, Ernakulam was relied on for ascertaining the permanent disability at 20%. I find that the compensation granted under the head disability is justified. The contention that loss of earning power should not have been treated as a separate head of compensation after having granted compensation under the head "disability" is justified and the award is liable to be interfered with on that count.