Ambika, C/o. Vasu, Chembaladan House, Parashanoor, Malappuram vs I.C. Shaji and Others

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellant a 32 year old insurance agent sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 14/06/04. Allegedly while she was travelling by a bus it collided with another bus which was coming from the opposite direction. Negligence as found against drivers of both vehicles. The offending vehicles were insured with the 3rd and 6th respondents who admitted the policy. Against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- the earned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The adequacy of the compensation is under challenge in this appeal. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 6. We have also perused the impugned award.

The appellant sustained the following injuries as per medical records:-

1) Lacerated wound on the root of nose.

2) Lacerated wound on the right side of the nose.

3) Lacerated wound on the upper and lower lips.

Apart from the above injuries loss of one tooth was noted. Subsequent investigation revealed that the appellant sustained fracture to her nasal bone. Later nine teeth were extracted. The appellant was hospitalised for 13 days. Towards compensation for pain and sufferings, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- which according to the Learned Counsel for the appellant is inadequate. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalization, we are inclined to award an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of amenities including loss of hearing capacity. This was for the reason that the appellant had a case that due to the head injury sustained by her, her hearing capacity was impaired. It is relevant to note that the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of amenities suffered by the appellant during the period of treatment and convalescence. Since no sum was awarded towards that, we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as loss of amenities of life during the period of treatment and consequential rest.

As the appellant was hospitalised for 13 days, she is entitled to get bystander''s expenses at the rate of 200/- per day as the accident was in the year 2004. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 800/- the appellant becomes entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,800/- towards bystander''s expenses.

Though the appellant claimed that she was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- , which according to us is reasonable. A reasonable sum has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of earnings.

We do notice that nine teeth were extracted consequent to the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Undoubtedly this will cause some discomfort to the appellant and the same would affect the quality of her life. We also notice that no amount was awarded towards future treatment i.e. for fixing artificial teeth. Taking all these aspects into account, we are of the view that the appellant has to be awarded reasonable sum for the continuing discomfort on account of the extraction of teeth. We notice that she was only 32 years old at the time of the accident. Thus we are awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for continuing discomfort.

Thus in total the appellant becomes entitled to get a sum of Rs. 26,800/- over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The liability to pay the additional amount awarded shall be shared by respondents 3 and 6 in the ratio made mention of in the impugned award. The additional amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.