IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1748 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.183/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- REGIL P. GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE VARGHESE, ATHICKAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURY, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.R.SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.K.RAFEEK, MUNDETH CHEMICALS & PLASTICS, EDAVOOR P.O., OKKAL VIA, KALADY (OWNER). 2. JOHNSON, S/O.ALLESH, KURIYIDATHU HOUSE, KOODALAPPATTU, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR (DRIVER). 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUVATTUPUZHA (POLICY NO. 698168). ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` M.A.C.A. No. 1748 OF 2005 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) No.183/01. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,73,868/- rounded to Rs.5,73,870/- at 6% interest. The appellant is aggrieved by the inadequate compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. We hard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where the life of a young man aged 24 years is blighted by the accident. He was having diploma in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. He was employed and earned monthly income of Rs.4,000/- and it is proved by Ext.A4 certificate issued by the employer. However, the income is taken as Rs.2,000/-. He submits that he was planning to go abroad but as a result of the accident such possibility is also ruined. He also read out the nature of the injuries and the treatments he had to undergo. The petitioner sustained the following injuries: MACA.1748/05 : 2 : “ i) Right fronto parietal acute subdural haematoma ii) Subarachnoid haemorrhage iii) Anterior compartment syndrome of right leg iv) Capitate fracture of left wrist v) Fracture of right tibia with undisplaced comminuted fracture of right fibula.” He pointed out that the appellant was artificially ventilated for ten days. He was inpatient for a period of 102 days. He had to be attended by bystanders and he had to pay amounts towards rent and accommodation but no amount is awarded towards rent, he complains. He further contends that though he raised Rs.15,000/- as claim for extra nourishment, only Rs.1,000/- is granted which is highly inadequate. He further submits that though he had produced bills for Rs.6 lakhs, the amount awarded is only Rs.3,68,000/-. He further submits that having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered, substantial amount should have been awarded for future treatment. But, no amount is awarded towards future treatment, he complains. He points out that towards loss for disfigurement, only a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted. Lastly, he MACA.1748/05 : 3 : complains that consequent upon the adoption of the income at Rs.2,000/- per month, the actual amount towards disability is only Rs.1,42,800/-. He would submit that in fact, if the amount awarded towards medical treatment is deducted from the total amount, what is awarded is only a meagre sum which is inadequate to meet the ends of justice. He points out that towards loss of earnings, he was awarded only Rs.8,000/- against the claim of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance company points out that apart from producing Ext.A9 the employer was not examined. There is no reliable evidence to find that the appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, he points out. The appellant has not produced documentary evidence to show his qualification, contends learned counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, he would submit that the income fixed at Rs.2,000/- is not to be interfered. As regards the medical bills, he would submit that in Ext.A11, the appellant has shown that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,80,937/-. He produced a further consolidated bill of Rs.1,89,190/-. But it is found that the consolidated bill includes many bills already included in the medical bills. It is seen that the MACA.1748/05 : 4 : amount is arrived at after deducting the amount represented by the photostat copies and the total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- stands accordingly granted. 4. Firstly, let us see what is the income to be reckoned. The averment is that the appellant is a diploma holder in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that this allegation is not denied. Further, the counsel points out that there is nothing in the cross examination of the claimant to suggest that the Insurance company doubted the veracity of the claim of the appellant that the appellant is a person with the qualification mentioned. No doubt, the appellant has not examined his employer. But, we think that having regard to the qualifications which are mentioned and the year of the accident, we can safely fix a sum of Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant. Having fixed the income at Rs.2,500/-, applying the formula, we find that the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,78,500/- towards the disability. Having deducted the amount already provided, Rs.35,700/- more is to be awarded. Applying the increase in income for the period of four months, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.2,000/- more towards loss of earning. We MACA.1748/05 : 5 : also feel that the appellant should be awarded a further sum of Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment. Still further we think that the appellant should be awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- more under the head disfigurement, loss of marriage prospectus, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. We think that Rs.10,000/- more would suffice in this regard. However, learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant has epileptic fits as a result of the accident. It is well settled that the court must take into consideration the future expenses which will have to be incurred by the appellant. We feel that interest of justice will be met if Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards future treatment. It cannot also be ignored that the appellant had incurred expenses towards rent paid for persons who had accompanied him. There is a pretty long period of hospitalisation. The appellant was artificially ventilated for ten days. His condition has been reasonably treated as serious enough so as to attract the need for persons, namely, relatives, friends to accompany him and remain with him so that he receives proper treatment. We think that a sum of Rs.8,000/- can be awarded towards rent. This would mean that the appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.69,700/- rounded to MACA.1748/05 : 6 : Rs.70,000/- . We notice another complaint of the appellant namely, the award of interest. The interest has been awarded only at 6%. We feel that the appellant should be awarded interest for both the amount as awarded by the Tribunal as also the enhancement we are awarding at interest at 7.5%. Accordingly, we award a further sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest at 7.5% against respondents from date of petition till date of payment and also award 7.5% interest instead of 6% on the amount already awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks