AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The appellant, a cobbler sustained very serious injuries - optic nerve injury, pneumocephalus by temporal contusion and fracture lateral wall of orbit, contusion frontal ethmoid, maxillary sinus, squameus part of left temporal and mastoid with bleeding from ear and nose - as the direct result of a road traffic accident which was caused by the negligence of the driver of a vehicle which was insured by the third respondent Insurance Company. The appellant complains that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for injuries sustained by him. He claimed a total amount of Rs. 4 lakhs under various heads. The Tribunal under the impugned award allowed him only Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. According to him there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal under all the heads.
We have heard the submissions of Mr. Jomy George, learned counsel for the appellant and those of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. The submission of Mr. Jomy George was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the MACT. The submission of the learned standing counsel was that there is no such inadequacy and that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation to the appellant.
We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the impugned award. We are convinced that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant. Having seen the nature of the injuries we find inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering. We ward Rs. 8000/- more to the appellant towards pain and suffering.
Similar inadequacy is noticed by us in the compensation awarded to the appellant towards loss of amenities also. We award to the appellant Rs. 5000/- more towards loss of amenities.
The appellant was awarded loss of earnings at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per mensem for three months only. Having seen the nature of the injuries we are sure that the appellant lost his earnings for at least four months. We are also of the view that the Tribunal should have taken Rs. 2000/- per mensem as the monthly income of the appellant and not Rs. 1500/- presently taken. This means that the appellant is awarded Rs. 3500/- more towards loss of earnings. 7. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any separate compensation towards bystander''s charges, though a global amount is seen paid towards many heads including attendant''s charges. We award to the appellant Rs. 1800/- separately as compensation for bystander''s charges.
A Medical Board assessed the permanent disability suffered by the appellant at 30%. The learned Tribunal after accepting the disability certificate would award only a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards disability. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the disability compensation. We find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. On going through the injuries, we are of the view that the appellant has certainly suffered at least 25% permanent partial disability on account of the injuries. When disability compensation is calculated adopting the above percentage and the multiplicand of Rs. 24,000/- it will be seen that the appellant is eligible for a further amount of Rs. 77,000/- (over and above Rs. 25,000/- already awarded) towards disability. We award that amount to the appellant. Thus in all the appellant is awarded a total amount of Rs. 95,300/- over and above what is awarded by the learned Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from date of the application till realisation. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified as above.