Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 12.5.2008 in O.P(MV).No.958/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The claimant sustained serious injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 28.9.2002 while the claimant was travelling in a motor cycle as a pillion rider. The motor vehicle dashed against a mini lorry which came from the opposite direction causing grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant was immediately taken to Al-Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna. The claimant claimed ` 8,27,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal passed an award allowing the claimant to realise an amount of ` 2,60,710/- with interest @ 7% per annum which includes ` 2,22,960/- spent towards medical bills. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the claimant has preferred this appeal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the claim petition.
2. Parties did not adduce any oral evidence. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimant.
3. The claimant was aged 25 years old and he is a salesman who claims that his monthly income was ` 5,000/-. As per the discharge summary, the claimant sustained blunt injury abdomen, liver laceration involving (R) lobe of liver - Hemoperitoneum, Hemopneumothorax (R), communited fracture shaft of femur (R) middle third, compound fracture right patella, loss of part of medial femoral condyle (R), laceration scalp left parietal region cerebral concussion. He was hospitalised for 62 days. The Tribunal awarded very small amounts under every heads other than the head medical bills. The medical bills show that he had expended ` 2,22,960/- for treatment expenses. The appeal is preferred challenging the quantum of compensation. The appeal is also directed against determination of non-liability of the insurance company and to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant.
4. The compensation amount of ` 500/- awarded under the head transport to the hospital is not reasonable or just. Considering the fact that he was hospitalised for 62 days and he attended the hospital for 8 reviews, we are of the view that the compensation under the said head can be re-fixed as `3,000/-. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to ` 2,500/- additional compensation under the head transport to the hospital. For extra-nourishment and bystanders expenses only ` 6,200/- was awarded. For bystanders expenses, we re-fix ` 250/- per day. For 62 days, the amount comes to ` 15,500/-. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to ` 9,300/- under the said head. Compensation under the head extra-nourishment, we find that the claimant is entitled to ` 3,000/-. ` 100/- per review was granted, thus, totalling to `800/-. We are of the view that ` 5,000/- is just and reasonable for reviews (8 times). Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of ` 4,200/- under the said head. For pain and sufferings ` 15,000/- awarded is also too low and therefore, that has to be interfered with. Considering the fact that he had undergone treatment for prolonged period, treated as inpatient for 62 days, we are of the view that ` 30,000/- can be fixed as compensation under the head pain and sufferings. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to ` 15,000/- as additional compensation under the said head. Monthly income fixed by the Tribunal was ` 2,500/- per month. We fix the monthly income as ` 3,000/- per month. Considering the fact that he sustained grievous injuries and treated as inpatient for 62 days, we find that the petitioner is entitled to loss of earnings for six months. Thus, the claimant is entitled to `18,000/- under the said head. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to ` 3,000/- as additional compensation under the said head. For the discomfort and inconveniences suffered by the claimant due to the accident, and prolonged treatment etc., we find that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of ` 20,000/- under the head discomfort and inconveniences. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total additional compensation of ` 57,000/-.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.B1 insurance policy admittedly is a package policy and that the claimant was not carried for hire or reward. Therefore, the policy of the motor cycle covered the liability of the pillion rider and the 3rd respondent is liable to compensate the claimant. The counsel also submitted that the exoneration of the insurer from the liability to compensate the injured has adversely affected the claimant and that the appellant will not be able to execute the award in the above case. The counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the insurance company fairly conceded that the company is liable to compensate the insured in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to additional compensation of ` 57,000/- (Rupees fiftyseven thousand only) together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Respondents 1 to 3 in the O.P are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from today. The decree excluding the insurance company from the liability is set aside. It is made clear that the claimant is not entitled to claim any interest for the delay of 581 days in filing the appeal.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.
bkn/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.