GEORGE S/O. SAMUEL, AGED 48 YEARS, PRASANTHI KIZHAKKAYIL PARAMBU, P.O. PUTHIYARA KOZHIKODE Vs. RAMESH K. S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, ANITHA NIVAS, P.O. MEENCHANTA GATE KOZHIKODE-673023,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Manager of a retail outlet who sustained serious injuries including a head injury in a road traffic accident complains that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation. It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is quite inadequate and that towards heads such as loss of amenities, he was not awarded any compensation.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Smt. K.V. Rashmi, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. Rajesh Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. We have gone through the award in detail.

(3.) Having considered the submissions and having gone through the award, we feel that the appellant is eligible for some compensation towards the head of loss of amenities and enhanced compensation towards some of the heads under which compensation is already awarded. Towards transportation charges the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. We feel that a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- can be granted under this head. Hence, we award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- more towards transportation charges. Towards extra nourishment, we feel that the appellant could have been awarded the full amount claimed. Hence, we award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- more under the head compensation for extra nourishment. We find that towards bystander's expenses for 29 days the appellant has been awarded only at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. According to us, he was eligible for a sum at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day towards bystander's expenses. Hence, we award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs. 2,900/- more on this count. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, we feel that there is justification for awarding Rs. 5,000/- more towards pain and sufferings. Hence, we award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- more towards pain and sufferings. We find that no amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities. Hence, we award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities. One of the grounds raised in this appeal is that the learned Tribunal went wrong in finding that to the extent of 25% there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. Even though Smt. Reshmi addressed persuasive submissions, we are not persuaded to accept her submission in the above context. We retain the finding that there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment will necessarily have to be reduced by 25%. Thus the appellant will become eligible for only Rs. 11,175/- and we award the said amount to the appellant over and above what is awarded by the Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal in its award. The appeal is allowed. No costs.