JAYESH K.P Vs. RAMESH NARUKAVIL VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A poor victim of a motor vehicle accident, who suffered 100% disability on account of the accident, is the appellant herein. The accident was caused by an autorickshaw owned by the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The appellant filed O.P(MV) No. 1098/1998 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming a total compensation of Rs. 17 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,02,500.00. The appellant has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE appellant claims enhanced compensation under three heads. The first is regarding the compensation for disability and loss of earning capacity. The appellant contends that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.1,500.00 and adopted a multiplier of 17. According to the appellant, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC), for persons within the age group of 15 to 25 years, the operative multiplier should be 18. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged 21 years and therefore the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18 and not 17. The appellant claims enhancement of compensation on this count. The appellant also claimed Rs. 2,52,600.00 towards expenses for a bystander for six years. After having accepted that the appellant was practically a vegetable, who would require the assistance of others even for his moving about for his daily routine, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 43,000.00 under this head, is the grievance of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant points out that vouchers for the entire amount of Rs.2,52,600.00 were produced and proved through the persons who issued those vouchers and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in not accepting that evidence and awarding the said amount in full. Lastly, the appellant would contend that the appellant had spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs towards transportation expenses for taking the appellant to various hospitals, the compensation for which was restricted to only Rs. 5000.00 by the Tribunal. According to appellant, when a person is suffering 100% disability and is practically a vegetable, for his transportation to various hospitals for his treatment by hiring vehicles, the appellant would certainly have spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in limiting the expenses for transportation to Rs.5000.00.

(3.) AS far as the multiplier is concerned, the issue is settled in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the appropriate multiplier to be adopted in this case is Accordingly, for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity, the appellant was entitled to Rs. 3,24,000.00 as compensation (1500 x 12 x 18) instead of Rs. 3,06,000.00 awarded by Tribunal. On this count, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 18,000.00.