Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1423/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As against the claim for Rs.4 lakhs, an amount of Rs.1,35,500/- has been granted by the Tribunal with interest at 8.5% per annum.
2. The accident occurred on 6.9.2011 while he was walking along the northern footpath of Changanassery-Vazhoor road. He was hit by a car bearing registration NO.KL.28/3249. He was immediately taken to St. Thomas Hospital and was referred to Medical College, Hospital, Kottayam and therein he was treated as an inpatient. He has sustained fracture on left temporal bone and left zygoma, temporal extra dural haematoma and subdural haematoma, parenchymal hemorrhage in temporal cortex right in addition to the other injuries and bleeding from ear. He underwent multiple surgeries and was discharged from the hospital on 20.9.2011. According to the appellant, he was treated as an inpatient for 14 days and various treatments have been undergone thereafter also.
3. As against the disability reflected in Ext.X1 disability certificate, viz. 20%, the Tribunal has assessed only at 10%. In Ext.X1 disability certificate is issued by the Medical Board attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam the permanent disability of the appellant is assessed at 20% consisting of bilateral anosmia - 3%, 7% on account of headache, forgetfulness, dizziness and easily getting angry and 10% on account of risk of post traumatic epilepsy, getting frequent fits, on drug treatment. It is stated that the treatment may have to continue for long. The Tribunal found fault with the appellant for not producing any documents showing continuous treatment after discharge. But that cannot be taken as a ground to deny compensation. The contents of Ext.X1 disability certificate which is issued by a competent medical body attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam should have been taken note of by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that 20% disability can be accepted.
4. The claimant was aged 43 years at the time of accident and multiplier adopted is 14 which is in tune with the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 - SC).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that towards compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of earning power proper amounts have not been granted. It is also submitted that in the light of the evidence adduced that he was continuing treatment for partial loss of earning power also, at least five months' loss of earnings should have been allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that proper amounts have been awarded. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as given below:
It is clear that the appellant had continued his treatment and going by the effect of the injuries on his body, it is a case where he is having disability due to continuous headache, forgetfulness, dizziness and post traumatic epilepsy. It is seen that the Medical Board opined that continuous treatment is required for the appellant for a long time.
6. In that view of the matter, the compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and for permanent disability require modification. We therefore refix the compensation in the following manner:
7. The appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,54,500/-.
The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. There will be a direction to the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation less the amount already deposited, within three months.
The appeal is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) kav/