ANIL S/O.BHARATAN Vs. JOHNY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in OP(MV) No.1003 of 2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, has come up in appeal, claiming enhanced compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities suffered by him in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows: -

(2.) THE appellant submits that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side. The accident was on 15.5.2007. The appellant was at that time only 28 year old and he was a coolie by profession. He claimed his monthly income as Rs.4500/ -, but the Tribunal fixed only a notional income of 2500/ - which is on the lower side is the first contention raised by the appellant. Secondly it is submitted that the appellant suffered very serious injuries including 3 fractures and was hospitalised for 46 days. The compensation of 20,000/ - awarded by the tribunal for pain and suffering is not commensurate with the sufferings of the appellant. Thirdly it is contented that the Medical Collage Hospital issued Exhibit A12 disability certificate assessing Orthopaedic disability of 31% and on a reference from the Tribunal, by Exhibit X1, the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam assessed neuro disability also of 13%, but the Tribunal, after calculating loss of earning capacity for the orthopaedic disability of 31%, simply added to 10,000/ - for neuro disability without any calculation. According to the appellant the neuro disability should also have to be taken into account for calculating loss of earning capacity as done in the case of orthopaedic disability. It is the further contention of the appellant that for 46 days hospitalisation the bystander's expense at the rate of 50/ - is on the lower side. Lastly, it is submitted that because of the disability, the appellant is suffering from bilateral anosmia, head ache and dizziness. off and on, loss of memory and he runs the risk of epilepsy and numbness on the forehead. Considering these disabilities, the compensation for loss of amenities awarded is on the lower side is his contention.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail.