E.A. PHILIPOSE Vs. RAJU S/O.DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 31.07.2012 in O.P. (M.V.)No.1792/2003 of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, claimant therein preferred this appeal stating that he is entitled to get the entire compensation as sought for in the claim petition.

(2.) HEARD the counsel for the appellant and the second respondent insurance company.

(3.) AS the accident is admitted, I am of the view that this Court need not go into other aspects of the case and the question to be considered is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal under various heads is sufficient or not. Thus it can be seen that towards the loss of earning, in the absence of any evidence, following the decision reported in Laxmi Devi and Otrs v. Muhammad Tabbar and Otrs (2008 ACJ 1488), the Tribunal has fixed '.3,000/ - as the monthly income of the claimant. Though the counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was conducting catering service as self employment, no recognised or legal evidence is adduced to prove his earnings. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earnings. Ext.A7 is the discharge summary which shows that the claimant had undergone treatment for a period of six days from 16.08.2003 to 22.08.2003 for the injuries including zygoma fracture as endorsed in Ext.A7. Ext.A8 series of medical bills produced are covering a total sum of '.22,954/ -. The Tribunal has specifically found that out of the medical bills, bill Nos.1 to 15 are for '.4,553/ - alone bears the paid/cash received seal. As far as detailed bill No.16 for an amount of '.9,425/ -is concerned, it shows the entire expense covered by bill Nos.1 to 15 and bill No.17. Thus the court below fixed only '.9,425/ - altogether towards the medical expenses and extra nourishment. According to me, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the said amount requires modification and a sum of '.12,000/ - is fixed instead of '.9,500/ -. Thus on that account the appellant is entitled to get enhancement of '.2,500/ -. Considering the present cost of living, according to me, the bystanders expenses fixed by the court below are inadequate and the sum can be fixed as '.200/ - per day and thus in this regard the appellant is entitled to get an additional compensation of '.600/ -. Similarly transportation charges fixed are not fare, which requires enhancement and the same can be fixed as '.750/ -. For pain and sufferings, Tribunal fixed only '.15,000/ -, which according to me is insufficient and to meet the ends of justice, the amount is enhanced to the tune of '.20,000/ -. Under the head of loss of amenities and the convenience, etc. the court below fixed only '.5,000/ -, which according to me, is insufficient. Considering the zygoma fracture, the said amount can be enhanced to the tune of '.7,500/ -. Similarly, item number 11 requires enhancement and the same can be fixed as '.750/ -. Thus according to me, the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of '.46,700/ -. But the Tribunal has fixed only a sum of '.35,600/ -.