JUDGEMENT
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH,J. -
(1.)This appeal is preferred by the claimant in O.P.(M.V.)
No.461/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Attingal. The challenge is against the quantum of
compensation awarded. The facts relevant for consideration
of this appeal is as follows:
The appellant herein sustained tibial fracture in a
motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.2.2002 at
Mudapuram. She was admitted in the Taluk Head Quarters
Hospital, Chirayinkil and was treated therein for the said
injuries. She was treated as an inpatient for 146 days. She
was examined by a doctor and assessed her disability as
20%. Her claim is that she was a vegetable vendor by profession and was earning Rs.3,000/ - per month. The
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,020/ -. The
total amount of compensation awarded as per the original
award is seen corrected as per order in I.A.Nos.854/2007 &
849/2007 in O.P.(M.V.)461/2002. Aggrieved by the said assessment, this appeal is preferred.
(2.)When the petition came up for hearing, the main submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that even though the case of the petitioner is that she is a
vegetable vendor by profession, only a notional income of
Rs.1,800/ - per month is seen considered by the Tribunal. It
is the submission that going by the decision of the Apex
court in Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
[(2014) 2 SCC 735] in the case of a vegetable vendor,
who was aged 24 years, the monthly income was taken at
Rs.6,500/ - where the accident occurred in the year 2008. It
is also the submission that even though the petitioner was
treated for 146 days as an inpatient in the hospital, only a
sum of Rs.7,000/ - is seen awarded towards pain and
suffering. More over no amount is seen awarded towards
bystander's expenses. It is the further submission that even
though an expert i.e. an Orthopedic Surgeon assessed the
disability as 20%, without showing any reason, the Tribunal
reduced the same to 15% It is the submission that it is a fit
case where an interference by this court is warranted. It is
the submission that the amount awarded is not a just
compensation.
(3.)We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. It is submitted that, it is only a
case of fracture of tibia. No complication is seen noted in
the first wound certificate. It is the further submission that
there is no evidence adduced by the claimant to
establish/prove that she is a vegetable vendor by profession.
It is a case where even the claimant was not examined
before the court. It is also the submission that the accident
in question occurred in the year 2002, whereas the Apex
Court considered the income of a vegetable vendor as
Rs.6,500/ - in a case where the accident occurred in 2008
and wherein claimant was examined as PW1. In this case,
neither the doctor who issued the disability certificate nor
the claimant was examined before the Tribunal. Under such
circumstances, an interference by this court is not
warranted as a just compensation was assessed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.