M. Kumar vs Rachappa M., S. Gnanendra and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The claimant/appellant herein suffered certain serious injuries in the accident that occurred on 12.10.2004. He was working as a driver in Karnataka State Financial Corporation (�KSFC� for short) at the time of the accident. Fortunately for the claimant, he is assigned some other job in KSFC protecting the pay. Therefore there is no loss of income as such suffered by the claimant due to the accidental injuries. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,32,100/-. This appeal is filed praying for enhancement of compensation. The records reveal that the claimant has suffered injury on head. C.T. scan of the brain was taken on 12.10.2004 by PW-2 - Dr. Ramesh Ranganathan. The said doctor has deposed in support of the case of the claimant. The medical records including the evidence of the doctor clearly reveal that there was a large right fronto-temporal acute subdural hematoma with right MCA infarct with extensive maxillofacial injury with gross bruising of left temporal region and left forearm. The claimant was operated for the said injuries and he was in ICU for 10 days. The claimant has suffered complete loss of vision in the right eye with left sided limb weakness, which means left side portion of the body is completely paralyzed.

The Tribunal has also stated in paragraph-13 of the judgment that the claimant was brought to the Court by three persons, who had lifted him and made him to sit on the chair. The Tribunal also found that the left hand and left leg of the claimant have completely lost control and the right eye of the claimant has lost the vision.

Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to B.G.S. Apollo hospital, Mysore wherein he was in-patient for 18 days. He was operated and open reduction/bone plating was done by conducting major surgery. He was advised to undergo physiotherapy while he was admitted as an in-patient at Victoria hospital for 31 days. In the said hospital, T'' tube was inserted in his throat for artificial breathing on 22.2.2005. Even when the claimant was brought to the Court, there was T'' tube in his throat and said T'' tube was inserted for artificial breathing. From the aforementioned facts, which cannot be disputed, it is clear that the claimant must have suffered lot of pain and agony. He will have to suffer pain and agony throughout his life. His left side portion of the body is completely paralyzed apart from loss of vision in right eye. Though his pay is protected by the grace of KSFC, he will have to suffer mentally throughout his life. He was just aged about 42 years at the time of the accident. He will have to depend on others throughout his life. In view of the same, we award Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of ''pain and suffering'' and Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head �loss of future amenities''. As aforementioned, the claimant has to depend on the attendant. He will have to take the assistance of the attendant throughout his life. He has to incur medical expenses in future even after retirement. He will have to go to office for his duty only in an autorickshaw or in a private vehicle. He cannot use public transport because that may risk his life. In this view of the matter, we propose to award Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of future medical, conveyance and attendant expenses.

We find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads such as loss of earning during laid up period, attendant charges incurred by the claimant while in treatment, medical expenses, expenses towards food and extra nourishment and conveyance charges is just and proper. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the said heads is left undisturbed. In view of the same, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 9,07,100/- in toto. The same is rounded off to Rs. 9,07,000/-. Accordingly, the following order is made:

The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,32,100/- to Rs. 9,07,000/-.

The rate of interest as well as deposit in the bank shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

The amount in deposit, if any shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly.