Rugmini Vs Jolly

Johnson John, J

1. The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 775 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad.

2. According to the appellant, on 26.12.2014, at about 11.30 a.m. while she was travellng as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, she fell down and sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending bus.

3. Before the Tribunal Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,000/- to the appellant. The appellant is challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal as inadequate.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

6. According to the appellant, she is a house wife and was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Tribunal fixed only Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income.

7. The   decision   of   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the appellant is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.9,500/-, as the accident occurred in the year 2014.

8. The Tribunal granted loss of earnings for 3 months and when the loss of earnings for 3 months at the revised notional income is calculated, an additional compensation of Rs.13,500/- is to be granted to the appellant.

9. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted only Rs.20,000/-. The treatment records shows that the petitioner sustained lacerated wound 6 x 1 x 1 cms. right parietal area, fracture to 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th metacarpal right hand, multiple rib fracture with haemothorax and pneumothorax.

10. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted to the appellant under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. The Tribunal granted only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and I find that the same is on the lower  side  and  hence,  an  additional  compensation  of Rs.5,000/-  is granted to the appellant under this head.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that even though Exhibit A9 series medical bills for Rs.47,627/- was admitted in evidence, the Tribunal has omitted to consider the same. In the absence of any challenge regarding the genuineness of Exhibit A9 series medical bills, I find that the same can be accepted and therefore, the appellant is granted a compensation of Rs.47,627/- towards treatment expenses.

12. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation as given below:

13. Thus, a total amount of Rs.81,127/- (Rupees Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Seven only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till realization (excluding the period of delay of 319 days in filing the appeal). The appellant would also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The claimants shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount.

The appeal is allowed as above.