AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant,J.
The Appellant herein is the legal heir of the deceased/ claimant. The deceased/claimant claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by her as a result of a motor accident which took place on 7/7/2003. Against a claim of Rs. 1,35,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 34,900/- as compensation as per the details shown below:
1 Pain and suffering - Rs. 12,000/
2 Loss of earning (2 months) - Rs. 5,000/
3 Clothing - Rs. 500/
4 Transportation - Rs. 1,000/
5 Treatment expenses (Bill Rs. 7,385.14) - Rs. 7,400/-
6 Bystander''s expenses - Rs. 1,500/
7 Extra Nourishment - Rs. 500/
8 Loss of enjoyment of amenities in life - Rs. 7,000/-
Total - Rs. 34,900/-
The claimant expired after the award was passed and this appeal is preferred by her daughter describing herself as the 2nd Appellant.
The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to be more specific, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amounts awarded under the heads are not satisfactory. The claimant had suffered lacerated wound on the occipital scalp 5 cm. She was admitted as an inpatient and underwent treatment from 7/7/03 to 20/7/03 (14 days) in two different hospitals. She had head injury, left frontal contusion, sub dural haemorrhage, right medial frontal ICS with diffused brain oedema. Scan report of the brain was taken and the impression gathered was "diffused cerebral brain stem edema, sub arachnoid haemorrhage left, sub dural haemorrhage and right frontal lobe haemorrhage." The certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, where she was treated subsequently confirms the consequences of the head injury suffered by her.
The claimant was a woman aged 43 years. She was earning livelihood as a Coolie. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, first of all, contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning is too insufficient. The nature of injuries suffered must have rendered the claimant unemployed involuntarily for a longer period of time. The period of two months reckoned by the Tribunal is also grossly inadequate, contends the counsel. It is then contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering ( Rs. 12,000/-) is also inadequate. Considering the nature of treatment and the injury suffered, a higher amount ought to have been awarded under that head, contends the counsel.
The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel is that no compensation has been awarded for disability suffered by the deceased/claimant as a result of the injury suffered. The learned Counsel relies on the disability certificate Ext.A21 issued by a Neuro Surgeon attached to the Brain & Spine Clinic, Thrissur, which shows that she had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 4% assessed on the mac bride scale. That Doctor did not evidently treat the injured/claimant. Post traumatic headache is the only disability perceived. The Tribunal did not award any amount as compensation for reduction in earning capacity employing the multiplier-multiplicand method. A total amount of Rs. 7,000/- was awarded as compensation for such disability/headache suffered. The amount awarded under this head is grossly inadequate, contends counsel.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree that Rs. 3,000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income and the deceased/claimant can safely be assumed to have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of three months. Under the head of pain and suffering, considering the head injury suffered, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- can be awarded as compensation. Though convincing evidence about physical disability suffered is not made available, the available indications suggest that the grievance of the claimant that the injury suffered exposed her to post traumatic recurring headache could be true. Under this head, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs. 12,000/- could have been awarded as compensation. We are not satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under any other head deserves enhancement.
On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the claimant/injured is entitled for a total further amount of Rs. 12,000/-(Rupees Twelve thousand only) as per the details shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded:
Pain and suffering ( Rs. 15,000/- minus Rs. 12,000/-) - Rs. 3,000/-
Loss of earnings ( Rs. 3,000/- x 3 minus Rs. 5,000/-) - Rs. 4,000/-
Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life ( Rs. 12,000/- minus Rs. 7,000/-) - Rs. 5,000/-
Total - Rs. 12,000/-
In the result:
(a) This appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The claimant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
(c) The entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.
(d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.