HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.P.(MV)No.1882 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The appellant, a 29 year old young man running a tea shop of his own was seriously injured on 01/02/2014, when he fell down from the motorcycle, of which he was a pillion rider. The Tribunal allowed the claimant to realise ₹72,400/- as compensation. Quantum of compensation is in challenge. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition.
2. The appellant, who met with an accident, was treated at Crescent Hospital, Alathur as inpatient. He was hospitalised for a period of altogether 20 days. The claimant was examined as PW.1. He produced Exts.A1 to A8 documents. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.B1 copy of the policy was produced by the Insurance Company.
3. Ext.A2 is the copy of the accident register-cum- wound certificate. Ext.A2 certifies that claimant sustained fracture of medial malleolus and posterior malleolus with ankle subluxation of right leg. The trimalleolar fracture of ankle was confirmed in X-ray also.
4. As per Ext.A6 the Discharge Summary issued from the same Hospital, Open Reduction and Internal Fixation were also done. He was admitted again as inpatient for the period from 18/4/2005 to 20/4/2005 for removal of implants and Ext.A7 is the disability certificate issued by the Associate Professor and Orthopaedic Surgeon of Medical College Hospital, Alleppey. Ext.A7 certified that the claimant suffered permanent whole body disability of 18% due to partial ankylosis of right ankle with a jog of dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of right ankle with inability to squat, malunited intra articular fracture of tibia with screws of right ankle with 15o varus angulation of right ankle and shortening of right leg segment by 2cm with limping on right side.
5. The accident occurred in the year 2004. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence other than the version of PW.1, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as ₹2,500/-. The income fixed as ₹2,500/- in a case like this is not just and reasonable. Since the accident was of the year 2004 and the claimant was the self employee running tea shop, we are of the view that the monthly income shall be taken as minimum of ₹4,000/-. Considering his treatment as inpatient, continued treatment and his admission as inpatient during April, 2005 we are of the view that the claimant shall be awarded loss of earning for a period of four months. The Tribunal awarded loss of earning for a period of only three months. The claimant is entitled to compensation of ₹16,000/- under the head ‘loss of earnings’. Deducting ₹7,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, balance amount will come to ₹8,500/-. Ext.A7 certificate issued by the Associate Professor and Orthopaedic Surgeon of Medical College Hospital, Alleppey certifies 18% permanent whole body disability. The Tribunal did not accept the percentage of the disability stating that there is nothing on record to corroborate the finding of the signatory to Ext.A7. At the same time the Tribunal observed that, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has sustained trimalleolar fracture and other injuries, the Tribunal was inclined to take 5% disability into consideration and applied 17 as multiplier.
6. We have examined the contentions of both sides. It is not in controversy that the claimant suffered permanent whole body disability due to injuries sustained in accident. On a moderate estimate, in the absence of proper proof of Ext.7 certificate, we thought of fixing disability as 8%. On the basis of the said multiplier and monthly income as ₹4,000/-, the disability compensation is worked out as ₹65,280/-. Deducting ₹25,500/- awarded, the additional compensation amount is ₹39,780/-. We grant ₹2,000/- more under the head bystander expense. The Tribunal only granted ₹2,000/- under this head, though the claimant was hospitalised for a period of 20 days.
For pain and suffering the Tribunal awarded ₹15,000/-. We are not inclined to interfere with the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. At the same time no compensation was awarded for loss of amenities and discomfort. Considering the percentage of the disability including shortening of the limp, we are of the view that, the claimant is entitled to ₹25,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹75,280/-.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal is modified. The claimant is entitled to ₹75,280/- as additional compensation with interest @ 8% per annum from 23/7/2004 till the date of realization from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The Insurance Company shall deposit the additional compensation amount within a period of two months.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skj ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE