T. VENUGOPALAN Vs. T. MOHAMMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 3520/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - on various heads as follows:

(2.) SINCE the appeal is of the year 2009 and the application was of the year 2002, we have decided to dispose of the appeal at the admission stage itself, after hearing counsel for the Insurance Company. Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear, in spite of notice of intimation given regarding the appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working as a sales man in a shop and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/ -. But, the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the monthly income as Rs. 1,500/ -. It is further contended that the appellant was treated as in -patient for 40 days on various occasions and the period taken for loss of earning during the period of treatment is also on the lower side. He had suffered 25% disability, but the Tribunal has not considered the same at all for the purpose of assessing occupational disability. The reasons given by the Tribunal for discarding the disability certificate issued by the medical board is also unsustainable in law. So, the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability certificate and awarded reasonable amount under the head 'loss of earning capacity'. Though he was treated as in - patient for 40 days, no amount was awarded under the head 'bystander's expenses'. The amount awarded under the head 'loss of amenities in life' is also on the lower side. Counsel for the appellant also canvassed for the proposition that as per Ext. B1 policy, additional amount was collected for employee (others) and that will be taken as additional premium collected for covering pillion rider carried in the motor cycle. So, the Tribunal ought to have made the Insurance Company liable for the entire amount awarded. Hence, according to counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to compensation on all heads and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount.