ANIMON Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on 28/9/2008. The appellant sustained injuries including fractures. He was treated as an inpatient in St.Johns Hospital, Kattappana from 28/9/2008 to 8/10/2008 and he had to undergo a major surgery of his right leg for internal fixation. The appellant was aged 28 years at the time of the accident and according to him he was working as a Carpenter and was earning a monthly income of ?6,000/-. He preferred a claim before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ?94,400/-. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) Heard Sri Mathew John, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Koshy George, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting ?3,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The accident happened in the year 2008 and adopting the dictum laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the claim of ?6,000/- as monthly income is justified. Considering the age of the appellant at the time of the accident he is entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects. Hence a sum of ?8,400/- has to be adopted as the monthly income for the purpose of calculating compensation for permanent disability. The above contention is fully justified. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal went wrong in scaling down the disability from 14% to 5%. It is submitted that in Ext.A6 disability certificate issued from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thodupuzha, the disability of the appellant is shown as 14%. The only reason for scaling down the disability to 5% is that none of the Doctors who issued the certificate have been examined. The above procedure followed by the Tribunal is not justified. The documents were not marked subject to proof or noting any objection from the side of the respondents. Admittedly the Tribunal has not followed the procedure contemplated in paragraph 12 of the judgment in Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar reported in (2010 KHC 5021) (SC). In the above circumstance, the Tribunal was bound to grant compensation for permanent disability by adopting 14% as the disability. The appellant is hence entitled to a sum of ?30,000/- towards loss of income and after deducting the amount of ?15,000/-granted by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of ?15,000/- under the head loss of income. The appellant is entitled to a sum of ?2,39,904/- as compensation towards permanent disability. After deducting the sum of ?30,600/-awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of ?2,09,304/- under the head compensation for permanent disability.