Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV) NO.2720/2005. The total compensation awarded is Rs.2,68,860/-.
2. We heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, she is a house wife who had sustained 25% disability due to the accident. She was aged 54 at the time of the accident. She was treated as an inpatient on different occasions for 73 days and various treatments have also been undergone. The total compensation awarded towards medical expenses itself is Rs.1,47,463.29. But towards pain and suffering and for continuing permanent disability only a much lesser amount has been awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that just compensation has been awarded.
5. The accident occurred on 21.7.2005. She was standing near southern side of Eloor Road Margin Free Market and was knocked down by a motor cycle. Paragraph 9 of the award will show that she was taken to Amritha Hospital wherein she was treated for 13 days by two different spells. Ext.A8 certificate will show that she sustained intercondylar displaced fracture ® elbow and superficial abrasion and complaints of pain on that area. Open reduction and intrnal fixation were done to stabilize fracture. Chevron osteotomy was also done. The fracture was reduced by fixation of 5 hole DCP on lateral side and 6 hole recon plate on medial side. After discharge implants were removed as evident from Ext.A9. She received outpatient treatment in an ayurvedic clinic for a period of one month. Then again, she received further allopathic treatment from Vathakat Orthopaedic hospital, Ernakulam for reunion of fracture. There she had to spend 24 days on the first occasion and 20 days on the second occasion. Iliac crest bone grafting was done to ® humerus under spinal anesthesia from the above hospital. Ext.A12 will show that fracture was non union even at the time of discharge.
6. We find that the service of a house wife will have to be assessed properly, since she has to do various household affairs. The amount taken is only Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (2001 ACJ 1735) wherein, in the year 1989 it was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, going by paragraph 10 of the judgment. We are of the view that Rs.3,000/- could have been taken which is only reasonable. Ext.X1 shows that the whole body permanent disability is 24% as per Mc Bride Scale. The multiplier to be adopted is 11. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation in the following manner:
7. We find that the amount granted towards pain and suffering and permanent disability and on other counts require modification. Therefore, we refix the compensation in the following manner:
(Rupees Three Lakhs thirty-eight thousand five hundred and forty only) The claimant will pay deficient court fee for the total compensation awarded. There will be a direction to the insurance company to deposit the entire amount of compensation, less the amount already deposited, within three months.
8. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 707 days and therefore, for the said period the interest on the enhanced compensation may not be granted. We find from the award that the Tribunal has granted interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. And another {(2009) 4 SCC 513} 9% interest can be granted from the date of petition and we adopt the same. But we make it clear that for the period of 707 days the appellant is not entitled for interest at the enhanced rate. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) kav/