AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,19,000/- on the allegation that he sustained injuries in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 19/02/2000 while riding a motor bike. Allegedly the appellant was hit down by a lorry which was coming from the opposite direction. Against the claim, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/- under various heads. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.
We were taken to the relevant portion of the award which details out the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Medical records reveal that the appellant sustained the following injuries:
Leefort II fracture maxilla.
2.Fracture to lower two molars and mobility of upper three teeth.
3.Fracture shaft of humerus right, fracture head of fibula right.
4.Un-displaced fracture lateral tibia
5.Avulsion of lower five teeth
6.Lacerated injury 10 cm x 2 cm front of neck.
7.Lacerated injury 10 x 2 x 2 cm side of face.
In support of the argument advanced, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ext.A6 which is the copy of the Wound certificate, Ext.A8 which is the copy of the Discharge Card, Ext.A11 CT Scan Report, Ext.A12 series of photographs and Ext.A14 Disability Certificate. The medical records would reveal that the appellant had undergone treatment for about 45 days in different spells. The case of the appellant is that he was an AC Mechanic earning a monthly salary of Rs. 37,500/-. But there was no cogent evidence to establish the monthly income. The learned Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/-. We see no reason to interfere with the said finding. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in spite of the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, towards loss of earning, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 9,000/- i.e. for three months. Considering the nature and gravity of the injuries, we are of the definite view that the appellant might have been forced to take rest at least for a period of six months. Hence, we find that the appellant is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earnings. Towards bystander''s expenses Rs. 2,000/- only was awarded by the learned Tribunal. As there was convincing evidence to show that the petitioner was hospitalized for about 45 days we are of the definite view that bystanders expenses at the rate of Rs. 200/- should have been awarded. Thus, we find that the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 7,000/- (9000 -2000) on that count. It was pointed out that towards pain and suffering only Rs. 15,000/- was awarded. Considering the fact that the petitioner sustained fracture to the major bone of his right hand and also to the facial bones, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and sufferings is inadequate. Hence, towards pain and sufferings, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Towards loss of amenities for the period during which the appellant underwent treatment and for the period during which he had taken rest the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/-. As already pointed out, the appellant might have been compelled to take rest at least for a period of six months. Hence we are of the view that towards loss of amenities, an additional sum has to be awarded. Hence, on that account, we award an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 55,200/- towards compensation for residual disability reckoning his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- and adopting multiplier 14. We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the adoption of the multiplier and the multiplicand. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though Ext.A14 Disability Certificate mentions that the disability of the appellant is 22% the learned Tribunal has fixed the residual disability at 11%. The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company per contra argued that the percentage fixed by the learned Tribunal is quite reasonable. We do note that the appellant had sustained fracture to the shaft of his right humerus as well as un-displaced fracture to lateral tibia. In addition to the above, he sustained fracture to the facial bones also. Certainly these injuries might have affected the earning capacity of the appellant considerably. Hence, we are of the view that the percentage adopted by the learned Tribunal is low. Considering all the relevant circumstances, we are fixing the residual disability of the appellant at 15% though it was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. If the compensation awarded for residual disability is re-calculated as above, it will come to Rs. 75,600/-. That means, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 20,400/- towards permanent disability. Thus, in total the appellant is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 61,400/- over and above what was awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed and the award shall stand modified as above. The above amount will carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal.