ASHOKAN Vs. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A business man, who sustained very serious injuries to his head leading to left parietal extra dural haematoma, right parietal haemorrhagic, contusion, sub arachnoid haemorrhage, represented by wife, complains that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for the injuries which was the direct result of a road traffic accident involving the vehicle in respect of which the third respondent Insurance Company had issued a valid and subsisting policy at the time of the accident. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs. 6 lakhs as compensation under various heads. The Tribunal awarded only a total amount of Rs. 1,49,600/ - . It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that the Tribunal erred in determining the disability compensation and compensation under various heads. It is specifically urged that the monthly income adopted by the Tribunal for fixing the disability compensation and compensation for loss of earnings is very low. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Rekha C.Nair, learned counsel for the appellant and those of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. We have gone through the impugned award in detail. According to Smt.Rekha C. Nair, the appellant was a business man and the monthly income of Rs. 1,500/ - adopted by the learned Tribunal is too low. She argued that the cumulative effect of the various disability certificates including Ext.A13 produced by the appellant is that the appellant sustained whole body disability of 20%. The Tribunal went wrong in taking only 10%, for the purpose of fixing disability compensation. She argued that the compensation awarded under various other heads is too low. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded very reasonable compensation and there is no warrant for giving any increase.

(2.) HAVING anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar and having gone through the impugned award, we feel, there is a specification for awarding some more compensation to the appellant. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the sum of Rs. 1,500/ - fixed monthly as the income of the appellant is too low. We adopt the sum of Rs. 2,500/ - as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned Tribunal, we notice, adopted the correct multiplier of 17. When the monthly income is increased, the disability compensation will stand increased; especially, as we are inclined to adopt the percentage of 15 (instead of 10) as the disability percentage. Thus, the disability compensation stand increased to Rs. 45,900/ - and we award that amount to the appellant towards disability. We are of the view that the amount presently awarded towards pain and sufferings is inadequate. We award Rs. 10,000/ - more towards that head. Similarly, we notice some inadequacy in the compensation awarded to the appellant towards loss of amenities of life. We award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/ - more towards that head. According to us, the amount awarded to the appellant towards bystander's charges is too low. Bystander's charges ought to be awarded at the rate of Rs. 150 per day. When bystander's charges is recalculated, the appellant will become eligible for a sum of Rs. 5950/ - more towards that head. We award that amount to the appellant. Towards transportation, we find that the amount awarded is inadequate. We award to the appellant Rs. 3,000/ - more towards transportation. As the monthly income has been increased by us, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant towards loss of earnings for four months stands enhanced by Rs. 4,000/ - . We award to the appellant the above sum of Rs. 4,000/ - . Thus, in all, the appellant eligible for Rs. 73,850/ - over and above what is awarded by the Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal in its award. Appeal allowed to the above extent. No costs.