AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellant, a 23 year old men met with an accident on 23/2/2002 while riding his motor cycle. Allegedly, the car driven by the first respondent which came from the opposite direction hit him down. The offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company. Against the claim of Rs. 1,20,000/- , the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 41,969/- as compensation. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge in this appeal. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company. We have also perused the impugned award.
Medical records reveal that the appellant suffered open fracture both bones of left leg as well as abrasions on right forearm and right knee. There was a lacerated wound on the right leg also. The fracture to tibia and fibula were reduced by surgical intervention and internal fixation. Subsequently he was again admitted to the hospital for removal of implants. He was inpatient for 15 days.
Towards compensation for pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of `12,000/- . Considering the grievous nature of the injuries and the period of hospitalisation, we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded under that head. Hence, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs. .8,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering.
Presumably the appellant might not have been able to move out for a period of four months on account of the injuries. However, no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal towards compensation for loss of amenities in life during the period of treatment. Thus we are awarding Rs. 15,000/- under that head.
Though the appellant has claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- , no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of earnings. As the accident was in the year 2003 and the appellant was aged 23 years, we are of the view that he might have earned at least Rs. 3000/- per month by engaging himself in any job or profession. Towards loss of earnings for four months, we are awarding Rs. 12,000/- .
As the accident was in the year 2002, the appellant is entitled to get by-stander''s expenses at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day. Hence, towards by-stander''s expenses for 15 days, (the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 400/. we are awarding an additional sum of Rs. 2600/- - on that count.
It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that in spite of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal for permanent disability. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, per contra, would submit that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the appellant had suffered any residual disability. As the appellant was only 22 years old, the signs of disability, if any, would vanish after the lapse of few yeaRs. However, we are of the view that on account of the injuries, the appellant might suffer some discomfort for few more years and the same would affect the quality of his life. We are of the view that the appellant has to be compensated for the same. We are awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on rough and ready estimate for continuing discomfort. Thus in total the appellant becomes entitled to get a sum of Rs. 47,600/- over and above what was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The additional amount awarded under this judgment shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand allowed as above.