GANGADHARA PANICKER @ GANGADHARAN Vs. S.S.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the legal heirs of deceased claimant in O.P (M.V.).No. 309/1996 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, have come up in appeal seeking enhanced compensation. Gangadahara Panicker alias Gangadharan, who was the original claimant in the O.P. suffered an accident on 6.12.1995 on account of the negligent driving of a vehicle of which the 1st respondent was the de facto owner, the

(2.) ND respondent was the de jure owner, the 3rd respondent was the driver and the 4th respondent was the insurance company. He suffered serious injuries including fractures. For the same he claimed compensation. He was 76 years old at the time of the accident. He continued treatment for the injuries suffered by him for two years. During the pendency of the O.P., he died and some of the appellants got themselves impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal, instead of assessing compensation under various heads, as is the usual practice, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as compensation due. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. During the pendency of this appeal, the 2nd appellant died and other appellants were recorded as her legal heirs. 2. The contention of the appellants is that the injured suffered very serious injuries including fractures, as a result of which, he continued treatment for a long period of two years and, therefore, if compensation is awarded under various heads, the injured would be entitled to much more than Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail. We are of opinion that whenever a claim for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident is filed, the Tribunal is expected to assess compensation under various heads as provided under the Act based on the guidelines gatherable from the form prescribed by the Act for preferring claims. Such an attempt does not appear to have been made by the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to recalculate the compensation payable to the injured under various heads. The injured was under treatment for two years. This is accepted by the Tribunal in the award also. Taking the notional income of the injured as Rs. 1000/- per month considering his age also, we are inclined to award loss of earnings for 24 months amounting to Rs. 24,000/-. As stated in the award, the injured suffered the following injuries: