Ramachandran Nair, J.,
This appeal is filed by the claimant/injured who had approached the Tribunal by filing O.P.(M.V) No. 1370/2011. Total compensation claimed was `.13 lakhs, out of which `.8,09,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal.
2. The only question that arises for consideration is with regard to the alleged inadequacy of the quantum.
3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company.
4. It is a case where the injured sustained the following injuries:
“Compound comminuted fracture right mid shaft femur with neurovascular injury,compound left knee injury with dislocation of knee and patella and fractures involving rims of medial femoral and tibial condyles, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami left, fracture superior acetabullar margin left, fracture right pubic symphysics with diastasis and displaced fracture of left sacrum involving promontory and ala”.
5. He had undergone a surgery on 7.3.2011 and was discharged on 2.4.2011. He was again readmitted on 18.9.2012 and was discharged on 20.9.2012 which is clear from Ext.A7 certificate. In the meanwhile he underwent another surgery on 19.9.2012. Ext.A10 medical certificate shows that he was treated for injuries in the road traffic accident. His left leg was almost completely injured and serious injuries have been suffered by him. Going by the medical bills Ext.A5 series, a total amount of `. 5,21,225/- was spent for treatment expenses. The Tribunal has disallowed `.67,000/- paid to the consultant physiotherapist for absence of any prescription for the same and due to the fact that the address of the clinic or address of the physiotherapist was not shown in the receipt. It is also noted that the the Physiotherapist was not examined.
6. The Tribunal has awarded the balance amount of `.4,52,175/- towards treatment expenses. Going by Ext.C1 disability certificate he has sustained 30% disability.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was doing upholstery works and had claimed only `.7,000/- as monthly income. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at only `.4,000/-. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the petitioner was also not examined to prove the monthly income. The age of the injured at the time of the accident is only 22 and the multiplier adopted is 18.
8. As far as the fixing of the monthly income is concerned of a workman in an unorganised sector the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision reported in Syed Sadiq v.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(AIR 2014 SC 1052) (para.8) which has laid down the guidelines for fixing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the said decision going by the facts, the year of the accident is 2000 whereas the monthly income has been taken as `.4,500/-. Even though, `.7,000/- is claimed, we are of the view that, we will be justified in assessing `.5,000/- as the monthly income, especially in the light of the fact that, the accident has occurred in the year 2011 and he being a skilled worker. Therefore, instead of the award already passed by the Tribunal we refix the same under various heads viz., loss of earnings, pain and suffering, for permanent disability and for loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life in the following manner. On other items the amount awarded already is affirmed.
(Rupees Nine lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Eight hundred only) Thus total compensation will be `.9,24,800/-. The claimants will also be entitled for grant of interest at the rate of 9%. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. There will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the total amount of compensation less the amount already deposited, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) AL/-
Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) True copy P.A to Judge