MACA/1611/2006 of MOHAMMED Vs IQUBAL T.M. on 31 December 2012

1. IQUBAL T.M., S/O.MOHAMMED,

RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPU HOUSE

SHIRIBAGLU VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK.

2. E.P.ABDULLA, S/O.ISMAIL,

RESIDING AT SHAFFYA MANZIL, ULLASNAGAR, P.O.ULLAL

MANGALORE, KARNATAKA.

3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT KASARAGOD.

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

S.SIRI JAGAN & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.==================M.A.C.A.No.1611 of 2006==================Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012 J U D G M E N T

Siri Jagan, J.

The claimant in O.P(M.V).No.443/2003 before the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod, is the appellant in thisM.A.C.A. He suffered injuries in an accident involving a Maruticar owned by the 2[nd] respondent, driven by the 1[st] respondentand was insured with the 3[rd] respondent-insurance company. Hesuffered head injuries as per Ext.A3 wound certificate. The injuryis described as “laceration over the scalp (occipital area) withbrain contusion and brain haemorrhage”. He was hospitalisedfor 18 days. According to the appellant, he continued treatmentas an outpatient. In the claim petition as against a total claim of` 5,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts as compensation:

The appellant claims enhancement of compensation under allheads.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant diedon 29.8.2011 and his widow has come on record to prosecute theappeal as additional appellant.

3. According to the appellants, the amount ofcompensation awarded by the Tribunal is not commensuratewith the injuries and disability suffered by the claimant. It issubmitted that although the claimant was only a coolie worker,the notional income fixed as ` 1500/- is too low. It is alsosubmitted that the Tribunal made a mistake in calculating themedical expenses supported by the medical bills, which,according to the appellants, would add up to ` 61,784/-. It is alsotheir case that for the head injury, the compensation for the painand sufferings granted by the Tribunal is very low. Theappellants further submit that although before the Tribunal nodisability certificate was produced, in the appeal, the claimantwas referred to medical board for examination and the medicalboard has issued a medical certificate, which reads thus:

“We, the Chairman and members of District Medical Boardhave carefully examined Mr.Muhammed, S/o.Sayib, KalpanaHouse, Kunnil, Kasargod Taluk who alleged to have been involvedin RTA (Ref. M.A.C.A. 1611/06) and sustained head injury. Now hehas impaired memory and is affecting day to day functioning. On examination he is having impairment in immediate and recentmemory suggestive of permanent moderate disability in the formof a post head injury annestic disorder which requires detailedneuropsychological evaluation from higher centre.”

Although no percentage of disability has been fixed therein, the

1[st] appellant has obtained a medical certificate dated 24.6.2006from Dr.Suresh K.Mankar, Associate Processor of Surgery,Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore, wherein the percentageof permanent disability suffered by the claimant on account ofhis head injury has been fixed as 15%. Therefore, the appellantsseek compensation for permanent disability in tune with the saidpercentage fixed by Dr.Suresh K.Mankar, who treated theclaimant.

4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the3[rd] respondent also, who opposes the contentions raised by theappellants. According to the learned standing counsel, no furtherenhancement is warranted in the light of the evidence producedby the 1[st] appellant before the Tribunal.

5. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.

6. We are of opinion that the notional income of the 1[st]appellant at the rate of ` 1500/- per month fixed by the Tribunalis low by the present day standards. Admittedly the claimant wasa coolie worker. In the above circumstances, we fix his notional

- : 4 :-

income as ` 2000/- per month. We are also inclined to grantcompensation for loss of income for three months. Accordingly,for the loss of income, we award ` 6000/-. We are not inclined tointerfere with the compensation fixed for transportation tohospital and the damage to clothes. Considering the injuriessuffered and the extent of medical attention received by the 1[st]appellant, we are inclined to fix the medical expenses as` 50,000/-. Since he had suffered head injury and must havesuffered considerable pain, we are inclined to enhance thecompensation for pain and sufferings to ` 15,000/-. Althoughthe appellants did not prove any disability before the Tribunal, inview of the medical certificate issued by the medical boardpursuant to a reference from this Court and the medicalcertificate issued by Dr.Suresh K.Mankar, Yenepoya MedicalCollege, Mangalore, we are inclined to fix his permanentdisability as 15% and on this count, the claimant is entitled tocompensation of ` 54,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants areentitled to the following compensation for the injuries andconsequent disability suffered by the claimant:

m.a.c.a.1611/06 - : 5 :-

The additional compensation of ` 65,700/- awarded as aboveshall be paid by the 3[rd] respondent to the additional 2[nd] appellantwithin three months, which amount will carry interest at the rateof 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till payment,which also shall be deposited along with the compensation.The M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.

sdk+

Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge