VIJAYAN, PEEDIKATHARAYIL Vs. SANTHOSH V.S., VELIKKAKATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV) No. 473/1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The appellant suffered injuries in an accident on 30.9.1994 on account of the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent (subsequently deleted from the party array), driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The appellant filed the O.P claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him and consequent permanent disability. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the compensation awarded under all heads is too low. The appellant has produced Ext.A12 disability certificate, in which, an Orthopedic surgeon of the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha certified 20% permanent disability of the appellant consequent to the injuries suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal erroneously refused to rely on the same only on the ground that the doctor has not been examined to prove the certificate. The appellant points out that going by the disability certificate, the appellant has very serious disability including inability to squat and limitation of flexion of ankle. It is submitted that the appellant being a welder by profession, these disabilities would seriously affect his earning capacity and therefore the Tribunal should have awarded more compensation under the head of loss of earning power. It is further submitted that the appellant had proved the medical bills for Rs. 7,790/- in spite of which for all expenses towards treatment, medicine, transportation, bystander and other expenses together, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. It is also submitted that the appellant was hospitalized for 25 days and the Tribunal herself had accepted the fact that he could not have indulged in his avocation for eight months. That being so, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering is low.

(3.) THE appellant was aged 39 years old at the time of the accident. Although he claimed to be a welder by profession, the Tribunal did not accept the same since he was not able to prove the same by acceptable materials on record. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of Rs. 1,500/-. The Tribunal herself had accepted the medical bills as genuine for Rs. 7,790/-. Considering that fact, we are of opinion that compensation for treatment, medicine, transportation, bystander and other expenses is low. We fix it as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the fact that the Tribunal herself had accepted the fact that the appellant had been undergoing treatment for eight months, we are of opinion that the compensation for pain and suffering should also be increased to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 10,000/-. Although the appellant had not proved the disability certificate, we are of opinion that the injuries suffered by him would certainly result in some loss of earning power. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 18,000/-, describing the same as compensation for partial disability and loss of amenities and had awarded a further Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of earning power. We are of opinion that Rs. 18,000/- must have been intended as the compensation for loss of earning capacity and Rs. 5,000/- compensation for loss of amenities in life. Although we are not inclined to interfere with the compensation fixed for loss of earning power, we are inclined to increase the compensation for loss of amenities to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 5,000/-. We are not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded under other heads and consequently, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as additional compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. That amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit that amount also within one month. The appeal is disposed of as above.