The appellant was travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider when it was knocked down by another vehicle, the rider of which was the second respondent. The first respondent was the owner and the third respondent, the insurer. The appellant filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh on the allegation that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. The Tribunal held that the second respondent was responsible for the accident and he is liable to pay compensation, which was fixed at Rs.43,880/-. The third respondent, insurer was directed to indemnify the first respondent insured. The appellant claims that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper. 2. Heard.
M.A.C.A.No.2125 of 2014
-2-
3. The appellant sustained fracture to shaft of the left humerus. He has radial nerve palsy. He was treated as inpatient for five days. He produced Ext.A5 certificate to prove that he has permanent disability of 15%.
4. The doctor was not examined to prove the contents of the disability certificate. The Tribunal fixed the functional liability at 3%. The appellant was working as a casual worker. It is not in dispute that he has radial nerve palsy. It appears that fixing the permanent disability at 3% is not reasonable. It is fixed at 5%. The compensation under this head will come to Rs.27,300/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.16,380/-, the difference is Rs.10,920/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred and twenty only). Under the head loss of earnings he was awarded two months income i.e. Rs.7,000/-. It appears that at least for three months he could not have worked. So under this head he is entitled to Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) more. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the amount of Rs.3,000/- given under M.A.C.A.No.2125 of 2014
-3-
the head loss of amenities of life also is not just. I am also satisfied that at least Rs.5,000/- should be awarded under this head. Thus the total amount Rs.16,420/-.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, and the appellant is allowed to recover from the third respondent Rs.16,420/- (Rupees sixteen thousand four hundred and twenty only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate fixed by the Tribunal from the date of the petition.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/