Ramachandran Nair , J.,
The claimant in the Tribunal was the appellant herein, who was injured in an accident while he was travelling as pillion rider in a motor vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11-M 238. He was aged 21 years at the time of the accident. The appeal is filed on two grounds. 1) The appellant challenges the exoneration of the Insurance Company from liability. 2. inadequacy of the quantum of compensation.
2. He was a pillion rider in KL 11 M 238 motor cycle on the date of the accident. He was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained injuries.
The details of the treatment mentioned in the certificate show the following:
“Initial mobilization, elevation, Tetanus prophylaxis, antibiotics, C&D of the wound. On 11.02.2002 under spinal anaesthesia. Closed interlocking nailing of tibia done with Medinov 10x34 Tibial Nail with cap and one proximal and one distal screw. Post operative period uneventful. He was taught muscle strengthening and mobilisation exercises and crutch walking. Suture removed on 21.2.2002. Surgical wound has healed well. The abrasions over the anero-lateral aspect needs further dressing”.
3. The Tribunal was of the view that even though, policy is produced it does not reveal payment of additional premium covering the risk of the pillion rider.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the policy produced is a package policy for a motor cycle and going by the terms and conditions, the pillion rider is covered. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that the pillion rider is covered. Therefore, regarding the said aspect, we reverse the said finding of the Tribunal and hold that the Insurance company is liable to pay the award.
5. As regards the injury sustained, we find from Ext.A3 that he had sustained the following injuries:
“RTA contused abrasion antero-lateral aspect of middle 1/3 of left leg.
Fracture left tibia -upper/middle 1/3 junction . Fracture neck of left fibulla”
6. He was inpatient for a period of 12 days and had undergone a surgery. It is also clear that muscle strengthening and mobilisation exercises and crutch walking was also advised.
7. The Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.
65039/-. Out of this Rs. 10,000/- is towards pain and suffering and Rs. 3000/- for incidental charges, Rs.2,000/- for loss of amenity and Rs. 3000/- towards loss of income. Rs. 500/- was awarded towards transportation and Rs.46,539/- for medical expenses. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is inadequate. He was in the hospital for 12 days and he suffered serious injuries including a fracture. Therefore, it will only be reasonable to grant Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering. No amount has been granted towards bystander expenses. Since the accident is of the year 2002 we award an amount of Rs. 150/- per day for 12 days. i.e. Rs. 1800/-. There is no disability going by the evidence. Therefore, the total compensation will be Rs. 86,839/-.
8. We are of the view that the interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. is too low and we fix the interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of petition by relying upon the decision of the apex court reported in Supe Dei(Smt.) & Ors. v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Anr. [(2009)4 SCC 513]. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount less the amount already deposited, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) AL/-
True copy P.A to Judge