JUDGMENT

The original petitioner in O.P.(M.V)

No.3055/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant herein and in this appeal, he impugns award dated 24.04.2008 in the above case. The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein also.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for the Insurance Company though Adv.Sri.Unni K.K. was given notice and his name shown in the cause list.

3. Brief facts of the case:

The appellant would allege that when he was travelling on a motor cycle as a pillion rider, driven by the 1st respondent, the motorcycle toppled down on account of the rash and negligent riding of the 1st respondent and the appellant sustained injuries. Accordingly, he filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

5. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company denied the accident, negligence and quantum of compensation. At the same time, liability also was denied on the ground that the policy issued in relation to the motorcycle involved in the accident is a statutory policy, which did not cover the risk of pillion rider.

6. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter, marking Exts.A1 and A5 on the part of the appellant. No evidence let in by the respondents. Finally the Tribunal awarded Rs.49,500/- as compensation with 7% interest as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.

7. The Tribunal also exonerated the Company from liability on the ground that Ext.A4 policy produced would not cover the risk of a pillion rider.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that Ext.A4 policy is a 'B' policy covering the risk of pillion rider also and, therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the Company from liability. She also submitted that in an earlier occasion, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company produced policy details in open court and it was conceded by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the policy issued in relation to the offending motorcycle would cover the risk of pillion rider.

9. On a perusal of Ext.A4, the same would go to show that the same is a 'B' policy and Rs.393/- comprehensive premium was collected. Therefore, the policy issued and produced as Ext.A4 in this particular case would cover the risk of pillion rider. In view of the matter, exoneration granted in favour of the 2nd respondent, Insurance Company stands set aside.

10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal not granted sufficient compensation in this case. It is further submitted that the 'loss of earnings' granted by the Tribunal after fixing monthly income at Rs.2,500/- is on lower side in a case where the appellant claimed Rs.4,000/- per month.

11. This submission appears to be impressive.

In fact, following the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236, Rs.3,500/- is liable to be fixed as the monthly income in a case involving accident of the year 2002 and the monthly income fixed accordingly.

12. The Tribunal granted 'loss of earnings'

for 3 months @ Rs.2,500/-. Following the ratio in Ramachandrappa's case (Supra), I am inclined to grant Rs.3,500/- for 4 months and the same would come to Rs.14,000/-. Hence Rs.6,500/- more is granted under the head 'loss of earnings'.

13. Coming to disability, no disability certificate produced to prove the disability of the appellant. As per Ext.A2 wound certificate, the appellant sustained injuries viz., abrasion on (L) forearm, both wrists, contusion on (L) upper arm and fracture shaft of (L) humerus. Appellant had to remain in the hospital for 11 days as in-patient. Condition at the time of discharge is noted as satisfactory. Appellant had incurred Rs.20,453.80/- towards medical expenses as per Ext.A5 series.

14. Towards 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal granted Rs.13,000/- and Rs.7,000/- towards 'discomforts and inconvenience