JUDGMENT

The appellant suffered injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 23.01.2010. The appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw. The driver of the autorickshaw lost control and the autorickshaw overturned, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries. A claim petition was filed seeking a compensation of Rs.41,91,000/-. The Tribunal awarded awarded a sum of Rs.12,49,200/- with 7.5% interest. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Heard.

3. The accident occurred on 23.01.2010. The appellant was aged 67 years and claimed to be an Agriculturist. A sum of Rs.4,000/- was fixed as notional income by the Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant submits that going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.7,500/-. The appellant is stated to be completely bedridden after the accident and his son has given evidence as PW1. The appellant had suffered fracture of the left clavicle, abrasion on the frontal region, subdural haematoma on right frontal region, fracture of the left frontal bone and left occipital bone, sub arachnoid bleeding, intra ventricular bleeding and fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs and left clavicle. He had to remain in the hospital for 162 days as can be seen from Exts.A7 and A17 discharge summaries. Ext.A23 series of medical bills amounting to Rs.9,73,033/- had been produced, out of which the Tribunal fixed the medical expenses at Rs.7,39,000/-. The Tribunal assessed a disability of 70% even though the Tribunal had noticed that the appellant is completely bedridden and cannot even move on his own.

4. The counsel for the appellant contended that additional compensation has to be granted under the heads loss of earning, permanent disability and actual medical expenses, since there was no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the amount from Rs.9,73,033/- to Rs.7,39,000/-. The counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant is bedridden for the past 11 years and going by the decision in Kajal V. Jagdish Chand reported in [2020 (1) KLT 743], the appellant is entitled to bystander expenses for the period subsequent to the hospitalization also. In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for determining the attendant charges for life, multiplier system should be followed. The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that since the Medical Board had assessed only 70% disability the same should be followed. However, he agreed that the notional income has to be Rs.7,500/- going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa's case. It is further submitted that the driver did not have a licence and the Tribunal had given liberty to the 3rd respondent to recover the amounts paid as compensation from respondents 1 and 2.

5. Having considered the contentions put forward by the counsel for the appellant and the respondents, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to additional compensation. The compensation for permanent disability has to be calculated treating the disability of the appellant as 100% functional disability, since admittedly he is bedridden after the accident. Calculating the amount of compensation on the basis of 100% disability and a notional income of Rs.7,500/- per month, the amount payable under the head will come to Rs.4,50,000/- and after deducting the sum of Rs.1,68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,82,000/- under that head. I have gone through the medical bills produced as Ext.A23 series and I find no reason to reduce the total bill amount from Rs.9,73,033/- to Rs.7,39,000/-. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.2,34,033/- towards medical expenses. The loss of earnings will be Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 12). After deducting the sum of Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is