JOSEPH MATHEW @ JOSE, THEKKEKUTTU Vs. TOMY GEORGE @ TOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in O.P.(M.V).No.672/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. (The 2nd respondent was deleted from the party array as per order in I.A.No.1488/2013 dated 12.6.2013). After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,96,700/ - on various heads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1356_TLKER0_2013.htm</FRM> Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has come before this Court with the above appeal claiming enhancement.

(2.) SINCE the liability of the insurance company is admitted, we thought of disposing of the appeal at the admission stage itself after hearing the learned counsel for the insurance company as well. Notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with as he was served with notice in the delay condonation application with information of appeal as well.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was aged only 42 years and rubber dealer -cum - planter by profession and getting Rs. 15,000/ - per month. But the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/ - for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head, loss of earning for the period of treatment, and further reduced to Rs. 2,000/ - for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head, loss of earning capacity, which is unsustainable in law. Further, the Tribunal has considered the orthopedic disability mentioned in Ext.A11 and did not consider Exts.A12 and A13 certificates, which will go to show that he is having some other difficulties as well. He is having loss of smell and loss of hearing on account of the injuries. That has affected his earning capacity. After the accident, he is not able to do his work and entrusted his work to his brother and he is looking after the business. So according to him, he had suffered total disability. Further, the amount awarded under the head, loss of amenities is also low considering the nature of disability suffered by him. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to get enhancement on all heads.