Dissatisfied with the meager amount of compensation granted to the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2104 of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode through the impugned award, the petitioner before the Tribunal has come up in appeal. 2. The appellant who was a G.D.S.(Gramik Dak Sevak) worker sustained a motor accident on 19.8.2006 when he was knocked down by bus bearing Reg.No.KL-11-G.2104. It seems that the learned Tribunal has passed an award by granting an amount of `28,750/- only as compensation on account of the injuries sustained to the appellant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation granted by the Tribunal through the impugned award is grossly inadequate. It has been pointed out that the appellant had proved the injuries sustained to him, through Ext.A2 Wound Certificate, Ext.A3 Discharge Summary, Ext.A4 Reference Card and Ext.A5 M.R.I. Scan report. It seems that the court below has not awarded any amount towards loss of earnings. It seems that an amount of `18,000/- has been awarded under the head pain and sufferings. At the same time, towards loss of amenities, the amount awarded is `1,500/- only.
3. Ext.A2 reveals that the appellant had sustained fracture of left clavicle and supra clavicular region, fracture scapula (left), multiple fractures of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs and lacerated wound forehead. He had undergone treatment as inpatient for the period from 27.9.2006 to 12.10.2006. It seems that no disability certificate has been produced. At the same time, the fact that he had suffered multiple fractures, ought to have been appreciated by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was getting an amount of `3,053/- per month as wages from his employment. It is true that no salary certificate has been produced. At the same time, there is nothing wrong in taking his monthly wages as `3,000/-. At least three months wages can be granted as compensation towards loss of earnings. Towards pain and sufferings, an amount of `2,000/- more can be granted as just compensation. Towards loss of amenities, it seems that a meager amount of `1,500/- has been granted by the learned Tribunal, which requires modification. An amount of `10,000/- has to be granted as just compensation towards loss of amenities. Therefore, this court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of `19,500/- also as compensation over and above the amount granted by the Tribunal.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and an amount of `19,500/- more is granted as additional compensation over and above the amount fixed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The third respondent Insurance Company shall pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within two months from today. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY //