MANOJ Vs. GEORGE MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.12/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha and this appeal is filed challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted under different heads of claim. It was found that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending autorickshaw owned and driven by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent insurance company. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting Rs. 3,96, 800/- as compensation to the appellant, though he had claimed Rs. 4,50, 000/-.

(2.) In this appeal it is contended that the monthly notional income and the compensation for loss of studies taken by the Tribunal is very low. Further, it is contended that the court below went wrong by taking 16 as the multiplier for the appellant, who was aged 19 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal ought to have taken 18 instead of 16, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The quantum of compensation determined under the head, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities are also inadequate and disproportionate with the grievous nature of the injuries and consequential sufferings and disablement arose therefrom, the learned counsel contends.

(3.) Per contra, it is contended that the quantum of compensation determined under the aforesaid heads of claim is just and fair and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. But, it is fairly admitted that the proper multiplier is 18, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.