AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant, an autorikshaw driver, sustained frature of right zygomatic arch, fracture of outer orbital wall, fracture of mandible, fracture of tibia, fracture of fibula and lacerated wound on the orbital area and multiple small lacerations over his body in a collision between the autorikshaw driven by him and a bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. It is in evidence that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, in respect of which a valid policy has been issued by the respondent Insurance Company. The appellant''s complaint is that the MACT did not award him adequate compensation for the injuries suffered by him. He claimed a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,24,000/- under various heads. According to him, there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the MACT.
We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, who argued that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the MACT. We have also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, who argued that there is no such inadequacy.
Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully read through the impugned award, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Having seen the nature of injuries, we are of the view that the appellant should have been awarded Rs. 9,000/- more towards pain and suffering. We award the same to the appellant.
We are surprised to find that no amount is awarded towards loss of amenities. We award Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities.
The appellant, admittedly, was an autorikshaw driver. The learned Tribunal fixed his monthly income notionally at Rs. 2,500/-. According to the appellant, his monthly income was Rs. 4,000/-. We fix the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- and we also feel that loss of earnings should have been awarded for a period of six months. When loss of earnings is recalculated as above, the appellant is eligible to get an amount of Rs. 10,500/- more towards loss of earnings. We award that amount to the appellant.
We notice inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards bystander''s charges. We award Rs. 2,200/- more towards bystander''s charges.
Ext.A10 certificate shows permanent disability of 15%, which is accepted by the learned Tribunal. As we have increased the monthly income of the appellant, the disability compensation will also increase. On recalculating the disability compensation, the appellant become eligible for Rs. 16,200/- more. We award that amount to the appellant.
Another grievance voiced by the appellant is that the implants had to be removed and no amount has been awarded towards future treatment. We are of the view that for the removal of the implants, the appellant should have been awarded Rs. 5,000/- more and hence, we award that amount to the appellant. Thus, in total, the appellant becomes entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 57,900/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand and nine hundred only) over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, which will carry interest at the same rate as specified in the impugned award.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award shall stand modified as above.