NALAKATH HANEEFA Vs. POTHIYIL THOTTIPPARAMBIL MOHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in O.P.(MV) No. before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, is the appellant herein. He suffered injuries in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle insured with the 4th respondent. He has filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by the appellant in the accident. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows: Transport to hospital Rs. 500.00 Extra nourishment &bystander's expenses Rs. 1,000.00 Medical expenses Rs. 41,302.00 Pain and suffering Rs. 9,000.00 Disability (5000x5017/100) Rs. 12,750.00 Total Rs. 64,552.00 Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the appellant was a fish merchant and was earning Rs. 3,500/- p.m. He had given evidence as PW1 in support of his claim regarding the monthly income. That evidence was not challenged in cross examination by the respondents. Despite the same, the Tribunal took only Rs. 1,250/- as the monthly income of the appellant for calculating loss of earning capacity. It is further submitted that although the appellant had suffered serious fractures, no amount has been awarded for loss of earnings. For pain and suffering, only a paltry amount of Rs. 9,000/- was awarded. No amount was awarded for loss of amenities in life despite accepting 5% disability, is the contention.

(3.) OF course, the award does not give reasons for the assessment of compensation. But it shows that the appellant had suffered several fractures including fractures of humerus, lacerated injury over right jaw and forehead and contusion of neck. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, he had given evidence regarding his monthly income, which was not challenged by the respondents. Even then, we do not think that his self-serving evidence can be taken into account for taking his monthly income as Rs. 3,500/-. We fix the monthly income of the the appellant as Rs. 2,000/-.