Asha, J.,
The appellant is the injured in a motor accident which occurred on 30.12.2003 at about 10.30 p.m while he was riding a bicycle through Thrissur Kunnamkulam Highway, when a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No. KL-10/R 2351 hit him. He sustained very serious injuries.
2. Immediately, after the accident, he was taken to Amala Hospital where he underwent treatment for a period of 7 days. From Ext.A7 the discharge certificate and Ext.A4, the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate, it is seen that he sustained minimal compression fracture of T12 spine; he was advised to take bed rest, Taylor's brace and medication. His disability was assessed as 12% due to Grade I collapse of T12 vertebra with limitation of flexion and extension. He was unable to do any work for a period of five months. Appellant claimed that he was a marble worker earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 39870/- as compensation against the claim.
3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner:
4. The appellant claimed his income as Rs.5,000/- per month but the Tribunal has reckoned his income @ Rs.2,500/- per month alone. The disability was assessed as 3% alone by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded under various heads are inadequate.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. We find that the appellant was a marble worker aged 33. Going by the decisions reported in Ramachandrappa Vs.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011)13 SCC 236 (para 13), the income of a person who is a worker in an unorganised sector can be reckoned as Rs.4,500/- per month. Accordingly, we modify the compensation under the heads of disability and loss of earning reckoning his income as Rs. 4,500/- per month. The appellant was unable to work for a period of five months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 22500/- is admissible under the head loss of earning at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per month. Similarly, we do not find any reason for the Tribunal to reduce the percentage of disability, assessed in Ext.A7 from 12% to 3%. Therefore, the compensation under the head disability is to be assessed reckoning the disability factor as 12%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- alone under the head by stander expenses. Reckoning a sum of Rs. 250/- per day, we enhance the same as Rs.2,500/-. Similarly, under the head pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. We enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/-. Since the appellant was engaged in the work of marble and the injuries
has been sustained to his spine, we find it just to award an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus he will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,68,900/-. Accordingly, we modify the award as follows:
7. We are of the view that the interest at the rate of 8% p.a awarded by the Tribunal is too low and we fix the interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of petition in the light of 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 as per the modified award along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of petition, less the amount already deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appellant can withdraw the amount on such deposit.
The appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) AL/-
Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) True copy P.A to Judge fair copy