Ramachandran Nair, J.,
The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant. She was injured in a motor accident on 7.4.2009 at 2 p.m. She was travelling in a Scorpio Van bearing Registration No. KL-37-300 from Velankanni to Kumily. The vehicle stopped at Thiruvarur in front of a hotel Royal Park. While she was getting down from the van, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-H-7888 driven by the first respondent came from behind and hit on the body of petitioner. She was crushed in between the two vehicles and sustained pelvic fracture-Type III, Fat embolism & Fracture at right clavicle. She was taken to the Lakshmana hospital. From there she was shifted to CHC Kumily. Again she was shifted to Caritas Hospital Thellakom on 18.4.2009 and discharged only on 30.4.2009.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Mathew John submitted that apart from being a house wife, she was conducting a diary and claimed only Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income for the service rendered. Due to lack of evidence, the Tribunal has fixed a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month as her earnings. The next contention is that inspite of production of disability certificate recording 20% disability issued by the medical Board, the Tribunal did not accept the same in full on the ground that the Doctor who issued the document was not examined. It is also submitted that for loss of amenities of life, no amount has been granted.
3. The disability factor is evident from the certificate issued by the Medical Board. It is clearly stated therein that permanent disability is 20%. In a matter like this, unless the respondents disputed the veracity of the certificate and it's contents it will not be proper to discard the certificate. There is no harm in accepting the percentage of disability assessed by the competent body like the Medical Board. Therefore, we do not agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the percentage of disability reflected in Ext.A6 cannot be accepted. We accordingly take the disability factor as 20% as far as the appellant is concerned for assessing the compensation.
4. Being a house wife, she was rendering valuable service to the family. It is only reasonable to take Rs. 5,000/- even though, the entire service rendered cannot be quantified in terms of money. But, for the purpose of assessing the compensation the notional income will have to be calculated. In that view of the matter, it is reasonable to take Rs.5000/- as the monthly income for the assessment of compensation.
5. The Tribunal has fixed compensation by granting amounts in the following manner.
6. We are of the view that since she had suffered serious injuries and had treatment and rest for a long time, (6 months) the amount granted towards pain and suffering requires enhancement. Apart from the same, enhanced compensation is allowable for bystanders expenses and the amount towards disability. Accordingly we modify the award as follows:
7. The total amount of compensation will be Rs. 3,16,780/-.
The enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of the petition in view of the decision of the apex court reported in Supe Dei(Smt.) & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. [(2009)4 SCC 513], in which Kaushnuma Begum
v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 9] is followed.
Thus the claimant is entitled interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition.
8. There will be a further direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount, less the amount already deposited, within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appeal is allowed as above. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) Sd/-
P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) AL/-
True copy P.A to Judge