Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant before the M.A.C.T aggrieved by the inadequate amount of compensation finalised by the Tribunal.
2. The appellant was sitting in his own autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-40/A 5795 by the side of a public road, when the offending vehicle namely a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-05/V 7005 hit against the backside of the autorickshaw. As a result of it, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred on 12.12.2009 at 3.45 pm. He was treated as an inpatient for 18 days as evident from para.10 of the judgment.
3. Mainly it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the notional income has been taken only as Rs.3,500/- instead of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. In this context the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Minu Rout & Anr.
v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. [2013 KHC 4701 wherein the Apex Court has found in para.13 of the judgment that “the Tribunal ought to have taken salary of the deceased Driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of a Driver is a skilled job”. It was held that it is a statutory duty of the Tribunal to award the just and reasonable compensation. Herein the accident occurred in the year 2009 and therefore we are of the view that the amount claimed by the applicant as Rs.5,000/- per mensem can be accepted. Even though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the driving license is not produced, the fact that he was the owner-cum-driver of the autorickshaw is an admitted one which is clear from the opening sentence in para.8 of the judgment of the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is a just one since for pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- has been granted and for loss of amenities also Rs.25,000/- has been granted. He was aged 42 and the multiplier adopted is 15. The percentage of disability is 22% as per Ext.C1 certificate.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the amounts awarded towards bystander's expenses as well as transportation charges and partial loss of earnings do not reflect the real position.
6. Apart from the same, it is pointed out that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in para.8 of the judgment in deducting compensation by 5% from the total amount awarded on the ground that the appellant did not obtain valid insurance policy in respect of the autorickshaw belonging to him.
7. As far as the said aspect is concerned, it is pointed out that the Insurance Company namely, the 2nd respondent herein, is the insurer of the offending vehicle and therefore no amount could have been deducted from the total compensation. We are also of the view that the said direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be justified.
8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner as evident from para.12 of the award:
9. In the light of the fact that were are fixing the monthly income as Rs.5,000/-, partial loss of earnings will be Rs.25,000/- and we modify the award and refix the compensation as follows:
(Rupees Three lakhs four thousand one hundred and thirty only) The appellant will also be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. There will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within three months, less the amount already deposited by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal will disburse the amount only after realising the court fee for the balance amount from the appellant. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge /true copy/ P.S to Judge