KUTTAPPAN Vs. K V CHERIAN S/O VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Coolie who sustained serious injuries - 1) fracture both bones lower 3rd left leg 2) comminuted fracture left zygoma 3) compound fracture left maxilla 4) fracture left mandible 5) fracture nasal bone 6) fracture orbital walls 7) left black eye 8) lacerated wound on the forehead and occipital region 9) bleeding from the nose and mouth 10) contused abrasion on the left side of back of chest, left hand, forearm and left arm - in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence on the part of the driver of a vehicle which was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company complains that the Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation. He claimed a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- and under the impugned award he was given only Rs. 1,48,296/-. It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is inadequate. The learned counsel for the appellant addressed submissions before us based on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.

(2.) HAVING considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the impugned award, we are of the view that there is genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellant. The appellant was a coolie and the accident occurred in the year 2000. He claims that he was getting a monthly income of Rs. 1,900/-. The learned Tribunal adopted his income to be Rs. 1,250/- only. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal could have adopted his monthly income as Rs. 1,900/- itself. We also find that while calculating disability compensation, the learned Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 5 only while the correct multiplier applicable was 11. When disability compensation is calculated adopting the revised multiplicand and the correct multiplier it will be seen that the appellant is eligible for Rs. 26,370/- more as disability compensation. We award to the appellant Rs. 26,370/- more towards disability compensation.

(3.) WE find that no amount was paid to the appellant towards compensation for loss of amenities. WE are sure having noticed the injuries suffered by the appellant that the appellant could not enjoy any of the amenities of life during the period of his treatment and also during the period of convalescence. WE award to the appellant Rs. 15,000/- more towards loss of amenities in life. Thus in all, we award to the appellant Rs. 52,970/- towards additional compensation under various heads.