IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2148 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.2327/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT --------------------------------- VIDHYADHARAN THAMPI, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VALLIMANGALATHU MEKKUMKARA, PUTHENVEEDU, KUTTICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR SRI.S.ASWAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. B.DEVARAJAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, TC 31/359, CHACKAI, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K.N.MATHEW BUILDING, GANDHARAI AMMAN KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2148 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. On 27.7.2002 while appellant was walking along the public road, autorickshaw belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent hit him. Appellant claimed compensation from the respondents for the injuries he suffered alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw. Tribunal accepted that contention but, as against a claim of Rs.1.5 lakhs, awarded only Rs.55,250/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Hence this appeal claiming enhanced compensation. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and contesting respondent. 3. Point for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation? MACA No.2148/2006 2 4. The Point. Appellant is a manual labourer and was aged 43 years at the time of accident. Though he claimed that he was earning at the rate of Rs.3,750/- per month, Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.2,000/- which according to him is too low. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,750/-. 5. It is true that appellant has not produced documentary evidence to support his claim regarding monthly income. Since he is a manual labourer, documentary evidence regarding income need not also be insisted upon. Considering the wages payable to unskilled labourers at the relevant time, we are inclined to think that the appellant was earning Rs.100/- per day for atleast 25 days in a month which brought his monthly income to Rs.2,500/-. 6. Ext.A5, copy of the wound certificate revealed that appellant suffered the following injuries:- “1. Undisplaced fracture of both bones of both legs. MACA No.2148/2006 3 2. Fractures of 4th and 5th metatarsals on the right foot.” Appellant was treated with long leg slab. Ext.A6 is the outpatient card and referral outpatient card issued to him from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Plaster cast was removed on 14.9.2002 and below knee cast was given for three weeks. Tribunal awarded loss of earnings for a period of three months at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Considering the nature of injuries above stated and nature and period of treatment, it is only reasonable to think that appellant was not able to work atleast for a period of five months. Thus, loss of earnings payable at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month comes to Rs.12,500/- as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Additional compensation payable on that count is Rs.6,500/-. 7. For expenses of bystander, Tribunal awarded only Rs.500/-. It is in evidence that appellant underwent inpatient treatment at Medical College Hospital during which time he required the assistance of a bystander. Even after discharge from the hospital, he required assistance of a bystander since he had fracture of both bones of both legs, was given long leg slab which was removed only on 14.9.2002 (accident was on 27.7.2002) and thereafter he was given below knee cast for another three weeks. Atleast for a period of five months MACA No.2148/2006 4 from the date of accident, he required the assistance of a bystander. Even the services rendered to him by the members of his family could be taken into consideration while awarding expenses of bystander. Taking these aspects into account, we award Rs.7,500/- for expenses of bystander as against Rs.500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Additional compensation payable on that count is Rs.7,000/-. 8. Though counsel requested us to interfere with the compensation awarded on other counts as well, on giving an anxious consideration of that request and considering the amount awarded on those counts and also considering all relevant factors, we are not persuaded to accept that request as we are satisfied that compensation awarded on those counts are just and fair. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the appellant is Rs.13,500/-. Appellant will get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant is allowed to realize a further sum of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand and Five hundred only) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realization from MACA No.2148/2006 5 respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally. Second respondent being the insurer of the vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks