GANESH KUMAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise from the same award of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(M.V.) No. 252/2007. M.A.C.A.1853/2011 is filed by the claimant and MACA 908/2012 is filed by the Insurance Company.

(2.) WE heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Jacob Sebastian and Smt. Preethy R. Nair and learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company Sri. Mathews Jacob.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed major faults with regard to the assessment of compensation, by fixing a reduced amount as salary in spite of positive evidence, documentary and oral to support the claim raised by the appellant. It is submitted that he was appointed as per Ext.A14 appointment letter. The District Manager of the Company was examined as PW4. It is submitted that Ext.A14 will show that he was offered a total amount of Rs. 14,700/ - per month and the appointment letter is dated 4.5.2005. Apart from the said amount he was entitled for daily allowance at the rate provided in the appointment letter. He was also eligible for incentive of 5% of total sales and the benefits like provident fund, gratuity and bonus. It is submitted that the evidence of PW4 will show that the appellant would have been getting a further amount of Rs. 7,000/ - to Rs. 8,000/ - per month. But the Tribunal by ignoring all these items of evidence fixed a notional amount of Rs. 10,000/ - as emoluments per month which cannot be justified. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the appellant are mainly fracture tooth, fracture nasal bone and fracture C4, C5 and C6, abrasions, lacerations etc. He was treated as inpatient for a total period of 783 days in different hospitals. The hospitals wherein he was treated include EMS Hospital, Perintalmanna, Indo -American Hospital, Vaikom, Life Care Clinic, Ernakulam, Lakshmi Hospital, Ernakulam as well as Sunrise Hospital, Ernakulam. It is submitted that the condition of the appellant will show that he is a quadriplegia patient and is completely laid up, unable to move himself. In such a situation, he is depending upon two bystanders which arrangement has to be continued for the entire life period. The same has resulted in causing innumerable health problems to him which require continuous and constant medical examination. It is submitted that these aspects were not properly assessed by the Tribunal and only meagre amounts have been granted under various heads including bystander's expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and conveniences, transportation expenses etc. It is also submitted that the appellant has produced additional bills before this Court as Annexure A2. Another important submission made by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal discarded the disability certificate issued by the doctor who treated him which showed that he had assessed the permanent disability as 90%. But the same has been drastically reduced to 20% after discarding his certificate. It is submitted that being a person with spinal cord injury where the appellant is unable to move about and do any normal duties in his life and also engage himself in any profitable employment the functional disability will have to be reckoned as 100% itself.