AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The injured is in appeal.
The appellant who sustained very serious injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 23/03/2000 approached the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 60,494/- under various heads. The adequacy of the compensation is under challenge.
Allegedly the appellant while walking along a road was hit down by a jeep, insured with the second respondent insurance company. It was urged in the memorandum of appeal that, though the petitioner sustained very serious injuries, no adequate compensation was given.
We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the second respondent insurance company. We have perused the copy of the impugned award also.
The appellant sustained various injuries as per the medical records, which were admitted in evidence as Exts.A2, A3, A6 and A8. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering.
The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the amount awarded for pain and suffering is disproportionate to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant. We find some force in the argument. We are of the view that the Tribunal could have awarded some more amount as compensation towards pain and suffering.
Taking into account the grievous nature of the injuries and the period of hospitalization, we are granting an additional sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering.
It is relevant to note that no amount was awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities for the period during which the appellant had undergone treatment and for the period during which she was advised to take rest. We are of the definite view that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- would be an adequate compensation for loss of amenities for the said period. The monthly income of the appellant was fixed at Rs. 1,500/- by the learned Tribunal. It is alleged that the appellant was running a dairy farm and she was earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. There is no convincing evidence regarding the exact income of the appellant. Though Exts. A26 and A27, which are two notices issued by the Canara Bank from where the appellant had availed a loan, were relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, they are in-sufficient to prove the exact income.
It is in evidence that the appellant was aged 43 years at the time of the accident. Presumably she might have earned at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month by doing some avocation.
Towards loss of earning Rs. 6,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. Presumably the appellant might not have been able to work for a period of six months. So, towards loss of earning, the appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Since the amount awarded under other heads are quite reasonable, we see no reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, the appellant is awarded an additional sum of Rs. 36,000/-. The appeal is allowed and the award shall stand modified as above. The additional amount awarded will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.