Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
This appeal is filed by the claimant. He challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurer. The insurance is admitted.
2. The claimant suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 31.1.2003. He was then 30 years of age. He was a coolie worker. It is stated that about 30 years back, he had already an injury to his left eye which had resulted in diminution of his vision. What was available to him is his right eye which was lost as a result of the accident occurred on 31.1.2003. He suffered fracture injuries to different portions of the head and ultimately, suffered injury to the optic nerve resulting in loss of vision in the right eye. The doctor, who treated him and certified his vision disability also, tendered evidence. She said that the right eye is now merely an ornamental one which absolutely no reaction to light or any other sensory perception. In view of this, we proceed to attack the compensation payable.
3. The court below has taken the claimant's monthly earnings at `1800/- and has quantified the loss of earnings for five months. We are satisfied that the monthly earnings ought to have been taken as `3000/- instead of `1800/-. The loss of earnings has to be determined for five months, i.e., the period during which he was under treatment as either an inpatient or an outpatient. Under such circumstances, we find that the appellant is entitled to an amount of `15,000/- (`3000/-x5) as loss of earnings instead of `9000/-.
4. We see that there is no ground to interfere with the medical and miscellaneous expenses granted. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the assistance that was required by the appellant during treatment and thereafter, we are of the view that he is entitled to an amount of `3000/- towards bystander expenses. No variation is called for in relation to expenses granted for transportation. In supersession of the amount of `15,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to an amount of `30,000/- having regard to the nature of injuries and pain suffered by him. In the light of the injuries suffered to the head and also to the eye, loss of amenities and conveniences will have to be determined appropriately. Taking into consideration the fact that he was only 30 years of age and he is stated to be still unmarried, he has to find others to look after himself. We also take into consideration the possibility of diminution of his matrimonial prospects and having regard to the facts and circumstances, on the whole, we award `75,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities and conveniences in supersession of the amount of `7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Onto the question of compensation for disability, we are of the view that the disability compensation will have to be determined by taking the projected income at `4,000/- per month. The appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 17 and the disability is rated as 80% by the Ophthalmologist as having 50% impact on the earning disability. Therefore, the amount of compensation due towards disability is 4000x12x17x50/100=`4,08,000/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of `5,44,800/- (Rupees five lakhs forty four thousand and eight hundred only). The said amount is fixed in supersession of the amount awarded by the court below.
The enhanced amount will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. The insurer will satisfy this appellate award within a period of two months from today.
This appeal is allowed in part as above.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE ks.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE True copy P.S.To Judge