RAJAN Vs. SOLY SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in O.P(M.V.).No. 1220/2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant herein. He suffered very serious injuries in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle driven by the 2nd respondent, which vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, assessed compensation due to the appellant under various heads as follows:

(2.) THE first contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,000.00 as against a claim of Rs. 4500.00. According to the appellant, the appellant was admittedly driving a car at the time of the accident and, therefore, there cannot be any doubt regarding the fact that he was a driver by profession. He had also produced his driving licence. The appellant contends that on the date of the accident, viz., 14.8.2000, a driver could be expected to earn much more than Rs. 2,000.00. Therefore, the fixation of income of Rs. 2,000.00 per month is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable, is the contention of the appellant. It is further submitted that on account of the accident and injuries sustained by the appellant, the appellant has practically become a vegetable and, therefore, the Tribunal should have taken 100% disability for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity. Instead, the Tribunal has adopted only 60% as the disability for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded anything towards loss of amenities in life despite accepting the fact that he has at least 60% permanent disability. It is also the contention of the appellant that with the disability, the appellant has to undergo further treatment for rest of his life also, for which, no provision has been made by the Tribunal for future treatment expenses.

(3.) THE Tribunal has narrated the injuries of the appellant in paragraph 9 of the award as follows:-"Severe head injury with fracture right orbital wall, fracture transverse process C1, and Ts, fracture ribs of right side 1,2, 3, pneumocephalus right sub dural hygroma, brain edema, loss of two teeth, partial loss of vision with diplopia, torticollis neck, loss of hearing and incontinence of urine and motion right sided hemiplegia, multiple bodily injuries." The appellant had examined the doctor who treated him, who gave evidence to the effect that the appellant has right side hemiplegia, abnormal behaviour and occasional incontinence of urine and stool. The Tribunal himself saw the appellant in court on 9.1.2007 and the Tribunal noted that he was unable to lift his right upper limb. Three disability certificates have been produced by the appellant; one in respect of neurological disability, one regarding his hearing capacity and another by an opthalmic surgeon. All of them separately assessed disability in respect of all three aspects of the appellant. Reading all these disabilities together, we have no hesitation to conclude that the appellant has become practically a vegetable and he will not be able to earn anything by indulging himself in any avocation whatsoever. Therefore, we are inclined to accept that the appellant has suffered total permanent disablement to the extent of 100% in respect of his earning capacity.