Asha, J. The claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1033/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, who has sustained injuries on account of the accident which occurred on 15.12.2010 on being hit by a motor cycle, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. He sustained the following injuries :
Deformity of left leg 1 x 0.5 cm.
Wound over anterior aspect of left leg 2 x 1 cm. Lacerated wound over lateral aspect of left leg Swelling and deformity of left arm Scalp wound of size 4 cm. over right forehead Palpable fracture present Lacerated wound of size 5 cm. over the left occipital region Fracture both bone left leg and fracture left humerus. Linear fractures in frontal bone and maxillary with haemosinus, haemorrhagic contusion and pneumocephalus.
2. The appellant was treated as an inpatient for 16 days in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The treatment was undergone at the expense of ` 41,968/-. The Medical Board assessed him to have disability of left upper limb by 7% and left lower limb by 10%. The Tribunal assessed the whole body disability as 10%. The appellant claimed that he was working as a coolie earning a monthly income of ` 6,000/-. He was aged 65 years at the time of the accident. As against the claim of ` 3 lakhs towards compensation, the Tribunal passed an award for a sum of ` 1,10,668/-. The appellant challenges the award on the ground that the compensation awarded under various heads is thoroughly inadequate.
3. We heard the learned counsel on either side.
4. It is found that the appellant was working as a coolie and he has undergone a prolonged treatment for the grievous injury sustained.
We find that the monthly income ought to have been assessed @ ` 4,000/- per month, going by the judgment of the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company ( AIR 2014 SC 1052) . Similarly the multiplier is seen taken as 5 only. Going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v, Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)), the proper multiplier adopted should have been 7. Accordingly, the compensation awarded for loss of earning power should be assessed as ` 33,600/- ( 4000 x 12 x 7 x 10%). Similarly, towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal has awarded only ` 8,000/-, reckoning the monthly income @ ` 2,000/-. A sum of `16,000/- ( 4,000/- x 4) would be admissible to him. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ` 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of the injuries and the disability sustained, we find it fit to award a sum of ` 35,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. It is found that the injuries effected in deformity on his legs. Towards disfigurement and deformity, we find it necessary to award a sum of ` 15,000/-. The expenses towards bystander has been reckoned only @ ` 200/- per day.
We refix it @ `300/- and a sum of ` 4,800/- would be admissible under this head. A sum of ` 20,000/- is awarded as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in place of ` 4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the appellant will be entitled to compensation as follows :
The amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition. There will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE
sv.