Sri Bhaskar vs Sri Sujan J.

Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J.—Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and there is no good ground made out for enhancement of compensation.

Perused the LCR.

The Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant as under:

(in Rs. )

(i)

Pain and suffering

25,000-00

(ii)

Medical conveyance and special diet, expenses

15,000-00

(iii)

Loss of earning during the period of treatment and rest

9,600-00

(iv)

Loss of future earning

51,840-00

(v)

Loss of amenities

10,000-00

Total

1,11,440-00

It is the case of the claimant that he was 19 years old, earning Rs. 6.000/- per month by doing Alluminium work for one Masia Mani at Bangalore. It is pleaded that in the motor accident that occurred on 1.8.2005, he sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and other injuries and he was treated in Bowring Hospital at Bangalore as inpatient. As per Ex. P5-discharge card issued by Bowring Hospital, the claimant was treated as inpatient from 1.8.2005 to 27.8.2005. It is stated that the claimant sustained fracture mid shaft tibia with butterfly fragment and fracture mid shaft fibula left. P.W2/Medical Officer has deposed that there is a wasting of muscle in left leg, left thigh; shortening of left lower limb by 2 cms; movement of knee and ankle are restricted and there is a slight limp, and opined that the claimant has got permanent disablement to the extent of 40% with reference to left lower limb and 20% to the whole body. The Tribunal has fixed permanent disablement at 10% of the whole body. Since the claimant has not proved that his income was Rs. 6,000/- per month as Alluminium Fabricator, the Tribunal has fixed income of the claimant at Rs. 80/- per day. The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of earning for a period of 4 months. Keeping in view that the claimant is a resident of Bangalore and skilled worker and the accident occurred in the year 2005, it would meet the ends of justice if his income is fixed at Rs. 4,500/- per month. Ex. P8/X-ray film of left leg shows implants in situ. Under such circumstances, the claimant is entitled for compensation towards future medical expenses. Keeping in view that the claimant has undergone surgery and for removal of implants he has to undergo one more surgery, it is a fit case to award reasonable compensation towards relevant heads. In our view, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

(in Rs. )

(i)

Pain and suffering

35,000-00

(ii)

Attendant, conveyance, special diet and incidental expenses

20,000-00

(iii)

Medical expenses (past and future)

30,000-00

(iv)

Loss of earning during the period of treatment and rest ( Rs. 4,500/- x4)

18,000-00

(v)

Loss of future earning ( Rs. 450/- x12x18)

97,200-00

(vi)

Loss of amenities

20,000-00

Total

Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal

2,20,200-00

1,11,440-00

Balance

1,08,760-00

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 1,08,760/- along with costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of Petition till realisation. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award are modified.

Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount along with costs and interest with the Tribunal within 3 months from today.