ARUN KUMAR Vs. ABDUL MANAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant in O.P(M.V.).No. 1861/2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. He was involved in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a driver of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, which is insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company. The appellant was aged 29 years at the time of accident. He claims to have been working as an Electrician in Saudi Arabia. He claimed that he was earning Rs. 18,000/ - per month as an Electrician in Saudi Arabia, in proof of which claim, he produced Ext.A15(a) salary certificate. He suffered fracture to his knee, for which, surgery was done with implanting, which was later removed. Based on these inputs, the Tribunal awarded compensation on various heads as follows: PART - I (a) Loss of earning for six months(5000 x Rs.30,000.00 6) (b) Partial loss of earning Nil (c) Transport to hospital Rs. 1,000.00 (d) Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 (e) Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 500.00 (f) Others - bystander expenses Rs. 1,000.00 (g) Medical Expenses Rs.43,282.00 PART -II (h) Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 15,000.00 (i) Compensation for continuing for Rs. 64,800.00 permanent disability (Rs. 3000 x 12 x 18 x 10/1000) (j) Compensation for the loss of amenities Nil in life Total Rs.1,56,582/ - rounded as Rs. 1,56,600/ - But, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle in question, the insurance company was exonerated from liability and the 1st respondent owner was directed to pay the compensation amount. The appellant is challenging the adequacy of the quantum fixed by the Tribunal as compensation.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the income of the appellant from Rs. 18,000/ - to Rs. 5,000/ - per month. It is submitted that the compensation for permanent disability ought to have been calculated on the basis of his monthly income as Rs. 18,000/ - per month, which has not been done by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the compensation for pain and suffering awarded is too low. The further contention raised by the appellant is that no compensation has been awarded for loss of amenities.

(3.) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the amount already awarded itself is exorbitant and not commensurate with the injuries and alleged disability sustained by the appellant. It is submitted that the income taken is very high also. Further, according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, as per a Full Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hariprasad and Others, AIR 2006 Kerala 125, compensation cannot be awarded separately on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity.