1. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.904 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 25.01.2013 at about 2.00 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.KL-5K/3699 and when the motorcycle reached at Kavanattinkara bridge, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-05/AB-9245 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The first and second respondents are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who was the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KL-05/AB-9245. Hence, the claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed written statement admitting the insurance policy but denying the case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent.

4. Before the tribunal, Exts. A1 to A12 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹7,15,186/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent/ insurer.

6. There is no dispute over the fact that the claimant met with a motor vehicle accident on 25.01.2013, while he was riding a motorcycle. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driven by the 2nd respondent which was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under all heads are meager and inadequate and are on the lower side, and it is not a just and fair compensation as mandated by law.

8. Now let us see whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation, and if so, what is the quantum.

9. The medical records would reveal that the claimant sustained cervical spine injury with quadriplegia, biocondylar and bilateral fracture of mandible and he had undergone treatment at the Indo American Hospital from 08.02.2013 to 25.03.2013. Thus the treatment records would reveal that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident.

10. According to the claimant, he was a Government servant working as Livestock Inspector in Kerala Government Service and after retirement, he was doing private practice.

11. The Tribunal took his monthly income as ₹5,000/-for the purpose of assessing compensation. He being a retired Live Stock Inspector, necessarily, his monthly income can be notionally taken as ₹9,000/- per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation. Accordingly, his monthly income is notionally taken as ₹9,000/- .

 12. Having regard to the grievous nature of injuries sustained by him, loss of earning is calculated at the rate of ₹ 9,000/- for a period of 8 months.  Accordingly, claimant I entitled to get ₹72,000/- (9,000 x 8) under the head loss of earnings instead of ₹20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13. As per Ext.A12 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the whole body disability of the injured is 78%. His notional income is taken as ₹9,000/-. He was aged 58 at the time of accident. Hence, 10% of the income is to be added as future prospects. After adding 10% future prospects to the monthly income, the income would come to ₹9,900/- (9,000 + 900). The multiplier is ‘9’. Hence, he is entitled to ₹8,33,976/- (9,900 x 12 x 9 x 78/100) under the head permanent disability as against ₹4,21,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

14. Under the head compensation for pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹75,000/- which  is found to be just and reasonable.

15. Under the head transport to hospital, the amount awarded  by  the  Tribunal  is  only  ₹10,000/-,  which  is  very meager. Accordingly, compensation under the said head is enhanced to ₹15,000/-.

16. Under the head extra nourishment, the tribunal has awarded only a sum of ₹1,000/-, which is on a lower side. Accordingly, compensation under the said head is enhanced to ₹5,000/-.

17. The medical records would show that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and had undergone inpatient treatment for 43 days.  The tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹150/- per day for the said 43 days which is found to be meager. An amount of Rs.300/- per day towards bystander expenses would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, an amount of ₹12,900/- (300 x 43) is awarded under the said head.

18. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities is very low.  Hence, it is enhanced to ₹75,000/-. The amount awarded under the head damage to clothing needs no enhancement.

19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹1,40,536/- under the head of medical expenses, based on Ext.A6 series of medical bills. Claimant has also produced Annexure-A4 medical bills for an amount of ₹4,777/-. Insurance company has no dispute over the said bills. Accordingly, the compensation under the said head is enhanced to ₹1,45,313/- instead of ₹1,40,536/-.

20. In the result, the appeal is allowed with cost. The compensation payable to the appellant/ claimant is as indicated in the tabular statement here below:-

                

                 

                  Amount enhanced is ₹5,20,003/- (₹12,35,189 - ₹7,15,186)

21. The 3rd respondent is liable to pay the award amount as enhanced by this Court with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With cost.

22. R3 insurance company shall deposit the award amount as enhanced by this Court in the Bank Account of the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the deposit if any already made. Since there was a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal, the claimant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of 99 days as directed in C.M. Appl. No.1543 of 2016 in M.A.C.A. No.1308 of 2016.

23. The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

                  The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 17.11.2019.