K. Sahadevan vs Abdul Rasheed M., M. Abdul Rasheed, National Insurance Company Ltd., P.B. No.32, Perumal Building, Main Road, Perumba, Payyannur, Kannur District and Mrs. Beena Narayanan, Kandoth P.O., Payyannur, Kannur District

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The claimant is in appeal. The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- on various heads on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 4/11/1999. Against the claim, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,450/- under various heads. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge.

Allegedly while the appellant was traveling, by an autorikshaw due to the recklessness of the driver of the autorikshaw, the vehicle capsized and he sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal fixed the primary liability on the driver and the third respondent - Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company. We have also perused the impugned award.

The appellant was hospitalized with the following injuries:

Grazed abrasion 8 x 2 cms, over the left forearm and 2x2 cms. over the left foot.

Swelling and deformity over the left thigh with fracture to thigh bone(mid shaft femur)

Swelling and tenderness of the left knee joint with fracture to upper end of the tibia(inter condylar fracture) and haemarthrosis (collection of blood inside the knee joint).

The fractures were surgically intervened and implants were fixed. The appellant was hospitalized for 14 days and he had undergone several reviews. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is too low. Considering the nature and gravity of the injuries and the period of hospitalization, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering.

Undoubtedly the appellant might have been forced to take rest at least for a period of four months. However no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation for loss of amenities. Hence, towards loss of amenities for the period during which the appellant had undergone treatment and rest, we are awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and he was a painter. In the claim petition it is stated that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.4000/-. But the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/-. We do note that the accident was of the year 1999. Presumably the appellant who was aged 30 years at the time of accident might have earned at least Rs.2500/- per month by engaging himself in any job or profession. So we are of the view that the monthly income of the appellant should have been fixed at Rs.2500/-. As we have already held that the appellant might have been forced to take rest at least for a period of four months, he should be compensated for loss of earning for four months. We notice that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.4,000/- as compensation for loss of earning. Hence, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs.6,000/- on that count.

Ext.A3 which is the medical certificate issued by the Indira Hospital, Mangalore reveal that the implants fixed to the leg of the appellant have to be removed. However no amount was awarded for future treatment. Hence, we are awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for future treatment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no amount was awarded for permanent disability. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent - insurance company, per contra, submitted that no disability certificate has been produced and that is the reason why the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation for permanent disability. Undoubtedly, the fracture to the upper end of the tibia would cause some discomfort to the appellant during her work he being a painter. So we are of the view that he has to be compensated for the same.

Towards continuing discomfort and inconveniences experienced by the appellant, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs.10,000/-. Towards transportation charges, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was subjected to so many reviews at Mangalore and these reviews were not taken into account by the Tribunal while awarding compensation for transportation. Considering the fact that the appellant was subjected to so many reviews, we are of the view that some more amount should have been awarded by the Tribunal for transportation. So we are awarding additional sum of Rs.4,000/- on that count.

Thus in total the appellant will be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 48,000/- over and above what was awarded by the learned Tribunal. This additional amount, except the sum of Rs.10,000/- which was awarded for future treatment, will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award shall stand modified as above. No costs.