Tek Ram vs Ved Pal and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,10,892/- awarded for having suffered facture of right clavicle and compound fracture of tibia in a motor accident which occurred on 15.06.2007. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant remained under treatment for about a year, but no compensation was awarded towards loss of income during that period. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded on account of conveyance and special diet and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering was inadequate.

In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, the Supreme Court observed that the determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales. At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.

After the accident, the Appellant was admitted in K.R. Hospital during the period of 15.06.2007 to 25.06.2007 where spinal anesthesia was given and nail was inserted to support tibia He was again admitted in this very hospital from 17.05.2008 to 19.05.2008 for removal of the nail.

In his affidavit, the Appellant testified that he could not attend to his work(of electrician) for a period of about one year. He claimed his income to be Rs. 4,500/- per month. Although his earnings was disputed, his testimony regarding duration of the treatment and his inability to attend to his work was not challenged in the cross-examination. In view of the unchallenged testimony, I would award him compensation for loss of income for one year, but would restrict it to the minimum wages of a skilled worker on the date of the accident, which were Rs. 3870/- per month. The compensation under this head comes to Rs. 3870 X 12= Rs. 46,440/-.

Considering the period of hospitalization and the two surgeries underwent by the Appellant and the duration of the treatment, the compensation awarded towards conveyance and special diet as also towards pain and suffering was too low. I enhance the compensation towards conveyance and special diet from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and for pain and suffering from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 71,440/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%. The Respondent No. 3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks, which shall be released to the Appellant immediately on deposit.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant.