Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal is filed by the additional claimants before the Tribunal below. The claimant namely the first petitioner before the Tribunal was aged 53 at the time of the accident. He claimed compensation for personal injury sustained by him to the tune of `3,50,000/- and during the pendency of the application, he died and the appellants have been impleaded as additional petitioners. Altogether an amount of `1,36,791/- has been granted with interest @ 8% by the Tribunal. In this appeal, the appellants have produced as additional exhibits Annexures 1 and 2, the photocopy of the driving licence of the claimant and true copy of the salary certificate. What is contended is that he was a licenced driver and was earning `5,000/- per month.
2. Towards the compensation under various heads, the Tribunal has assessed it in the following manner :
3. Heard both sides.
4 It is a case where the accident occurred on 25.10.2005 at 8.45 a.m. He was admitted in St.James Hospital, Chalakkudy. Going by Ext.A4 wound certificate, he had the following injuries :
1. Pain and suffering
2. Lacerated wound over right knee joint
3. Lacerated wound over either side of left knee joint, knee movement WNL
5. Going by Ext.A8 discharge summary, he was treated as an inpatient in St.James Hospital, Chalakudy for the period from 25/10/2005 to 25/11/2005. The diagnosis was closed fracture shaft of right femur. Wound debridement and CILN right femur done on 25.10.2005.
6. The petitioner was referred to Sanjoe Hospital, Perumbavoor. Ext.A7 will show that he required six months' rest. It also shows that he continued with the treatment for fracture shaft (Right) femur.
7. The disability certificate was issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon pointing out 16% disability. The Tribunal had before it Ext.A9 series of photographs showing the site of injury and scar also.
8. But the disability assessed was only at 6% by taking the view that the Orthopedic surgeon having not less than 10 years standing has not issued the certificate.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no dispute regarding the injury sustained and the disability report and merely for the reason that it was not issued by a Specialist having not less than 10 years standing, the Tribunal should not have rejected the evidence. The disability certificate was issued evidently by the Orthopedic surgeon who had treated the petitioner. Of course, he was not examined. But the facts recorded therein are not disputed. Therefore it will be only safe to record the disability recorded as 16%. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Minu Rout & another v. Satya Praduyumna Mohapatra and others ( 2013 ACJ 2544) as regards a qualified driver, `6,000/- can be taken as the monthly income. Herein what is claimed is only `5,000/-. We will therefore take `5,000/- as the monthly income and refix the compensation in the following manner :
( Rupees one lakh sixty thousand one hundred forty one only)
10. The amount will carry interest @ 9% instead of 8% granted by the Tribunal. There will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount as above with interest within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment less the amount already deposited before the Tribunal and the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the amount.
The appeal is allowed as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE sv.
The figure “1,60,141” and words “Rupees one lakh sixty thousand one hundred and forty one” occurring at page 5 of the judgment are corrected as “1,94,141” and “ Rupees one lakh ninety four thousand one hundred and forty one” respectively, vide order dated 24.02.2015 in I.A.No.595/2015 in M.A.C.A.No.731/2011.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)