Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is by a victim of a motor accident. He pleads that the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal is to be enhanced.
2. Heard.
3. Appellant suffered a road traffic accident at about 2.30 p.m. on 08.06.2001, while he was travelling in an autorikshaw with his wife. He was then aged 53 years. Offending vehicle collided with the autorikshaw. The Tribunal found negligence with the driver of the offending vehicle of which the 3rd respondent is the insurer. That insurer alone contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a total compensation of `1,24,200/-.
4. The uncontroverted testimony of PW1 through his proof affidavit speaks about different injuries and the income that he was deriving as a coolie. The material evidence on record shows that the type III c fracture on tibia plateau and the other injuries suffered by the victim, totally incapacitated him. The documentary evidence shows that he had undergone surgical procedures and treatment in different hospitals with a review and rehabilitation procedures for a period of nearly two years. Taking the disability assessed by the Doctors at 40% and the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, we are of the view that 40% disability has to be fixed even as regards the earning disability, since such loss is an avocational disability, having regard to the nature of the work that the appellant as a coolie was carrying on. He was then aged 53 years. His monthly income can be safely assessed at `3,000/-. His disability income has, therefore, to be determined as 3000 x 12 x 11 (multiplier) x 40% = `1,58,400/-. The evidence on record clearly shows that he would not have been able to earn any amount for a period of at least six months. Therefore, he is entitled to a total loss of earnings for six months, which is reckoned as 3000x6=`18,000/-. Nature of injuries and the different surgical procedures and the fact that the appellant was moving with the support of crutches, on the whole, show that he had suffered a lot. Therefore, we are of the view that he is entitled to an amount of `40,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant would not have been able to carry out his activities without appropriate bystander facilities. The expenditure towards the same is, therefore, fixed at `7,500/-. Towards extra nourishment and towards transport to and from the hospital on different occasions, the appellant is entitled to an amount of `5,000/- each. The appellant has been and is still undergoing further treatment and he is entitled to a compensation for loss of amenities and for further expenditure towards treatment. For that, he is entitled to a consolidated amount of `25,000/-. We think that on the evidence on record, the expenses granted for medical treatment at `47,000/- is just and reasonable. Hence, no interference is called for on that head of account.
5. Having regard to what is aforesaid, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of `3,05,900/- (Rupees three lakhs five thousand and nine hundred only), the details of which are given below.
========= Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of `1,81,700/- [3,05,900-1,24,200].
In the result, this appeal is allowed granting the appellant an additional compensation of `1,81,700/- (Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand and seven hundred only) with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the original petition before the Tribunal till realisation. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to satisfy the impugned award as modified by this appellate award within a period of two months from now.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg