IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 158 of 2004() AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.31/2008 ---------------------- OPMV.185/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TIRUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SANTHOSH M.P., S/O. CHANDU, SHEENA NIVAS, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL). BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.31/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.371/2004 IN MACA. NO.158/2004 DISMISSED 13/06/2008. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.AC.A.No.158 OF 2004 and Cross Objection No.31 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated 13th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A man aged 26 years sustained injuries in a motor accident on 6.9.1995 due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,56,000/=. The insurance company filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. A cross objection is also filed by the claimant contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. According to the claimant, he was running a bakery in the Tirur town and his income was Rs.15,000/= per month, but, he did not produce any income tax certificate. Tribunal noticed that he was making a daily deposit of Rs.220/= in the Syndicate Bank as can be seen from Ext.A11 and, therefore, Tribunal fixed Rs.4,000/= as his monthly income. We are of the opinion that no interference is required in the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal. Ext.A6 disability certificate shows that he was taken to Kasthurba Medical College Hospital, Manipal and there was comminuted MACA.158/2004 & C.O.31/2008 2 fracture of left tibia and fibula with segmental fracture. There was undisposed fracture of medial malleolus as can be seen from wound certificate and treatment certificate. The treatment included operations under general anesthesia, skin grafting, ring fixation etc. The length of the left leg was reduced by 1 ½ inch. He was admitted in the hospital for 12 times and treated as inpatient for 71 days. Even though doctor assessed 50% disability, that is only regarding the left leg and not the whole body disability. Tribunal assessed disability at 20%. We are of the opinion that 20% disability assessed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered. Taking guidance from the second schedule, 18 was taken as the multiplier (See A.P.S.R.T.C. v. M.Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689)) So, compensation payable will be Rs.1,72,800/=. We see no ground to disagree with the above. Medical bills for Rs.1,24,440/= were produced. Tribunal accepted the same. But, for medical and bystander's expense Rs.1,75,000/= was granted. We are of the opinion that, that was not correct. Tribunal should not be given such an exorbitant amount for bystander's expense. It is true that he was hospitalised for 71 days and at the maximum Rs.15,000/= can be granted for bystander's expenses, even if Rs.200/= is granted per day. Considering the bills produced and nature of treatment, Rs.1,25,000/= can be granted for medical expenses, Rs.15,000/= can be granted for bystander's expenses and together Rs.1,40,000/=. So, an excess amount of MACA.158/2004 & C.O.31/2008 3 Rs.35,000/= was granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, compensation payable will be Rs.4,21,000/= instead of Rs.4,56,000/= awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that 9% interest awarded was on the high side. Award was passed in 2003. Considering the interest rate available at that time as well as considering the fact that interest is in discretionary nature, we are not interfering in the same. Tribunal has awarded the above interest from the date of petition, but, future medical expenses should be granted only from the date of award. Therefore, Rs.4,11,000/= should be deposited with 9% from the date of application and Rs.10,000/= should be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award after deducting the amount already paid. Both appeal and cross objection are disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks