AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—V. Muthu, the claimant is the appellant. For the injuries sustained de to the negligent driving of the bus belonged
to the second respondent, the claimant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 26,892/-. Hence,
this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
On 4.1.89 at about 3.00 P.M., the claimant was riding on his bicycle in the Salem-Mullavadi Railway Gate Road. At that time, the bus bearing
registration No. TDM 6061, which came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed behind the injured/claimant, as a result of which, left front wheel
of the bus ran over him. Because of the impact, both his legs got fractured and he sustained a fracture on his right hand also. The cycle was
crushed and damaged. He was taken to the Government Head Quarters Hospital for medical treatment. He took treatment for more than 3
months. After discharge, he filed a petition for compensation against the driver, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company.
The claimant was working as a Telephone Lineman in Head Post Office, Salem. At the time of accident, he was aged about 37 years. Because
of the accident, his right leg has been shortened to a length of 2"". For 6 months, he was not able to attend the office.
In order to prove the accident the consequent sufferings, the claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2.
Exs.A-1 to A-25 were marked. The driver and the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contested
the claim by filing counter-stating that the driver of the bus was not negligent. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance
Company.
The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimant would be entitled to Rs.
26,892/- as compensation.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
On going through the records and the judgment impugned, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 26,892/-, as against the total compensation
of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed, is very much on the lower side. Though in the claim petition, the claimant mentioned various figures for each head
totalling about Rs. 1,50,000/-, he restricted his claim to Rs. 1,00,000/-. He produced medical bills Exs.A-5 to A-19 showing that he spent Rs.
1,891/- in the hospital. Besides that, he also produced Ex.A-24 Disability Certificate marked through P.W.2 Doctor. According to the said
certificate, he suffered permanent disability of 35 per cent. X - rays are Exs.A-23 and A-25 series.
According to P.W.2 Doctor, the injured/claimant was hospitalised from 4.1.89 to 3.4.89. P.W.2 would state in his deposition that the claimant
could not fold and stretch his leg due to the disability. P.W.1 would state that he took treatment as inpatient for 3 months and as out-patient for
another 3 months. When he resumed to duty, he was not able to work as Lineman, but he had been asked to do the work as Office Assistant.
According to him, due to the permanent disability, his promotional changes and future increase in income have been spoiled. According to Ex.A-
24 Disability Certificate, there is shortening of thigh bone to 4 cms and there are restrictions of the movement of right knee, left ankle and thy mist.
According to the counsel appearing for the appellant, the materials referred to al (sic) have not been considered by the Tribunal in the proper
perspective, while compiling the compensation. The Tribunal awarded (sic) Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering and for permanent disability. It
further awarded Rs. 1,892/- for the medical expenses, on the has is of the bills produced. There is no other amount provided under other heads.
On a similar facts of the case he Supreme Court in Amar Singh Vs. Ishwar and Others, and Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-. As a matter of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the present case are more
serious than in the of referred to by the Apex Court.
In the Managing Director, Thintvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras v. Thungavelu and another (1995 (2) L.W. 685, it is held that in a
case of permanent disability, the claiming ''would be entitled to the amount (soc) compensation not only for permanent disables but also for future
loss of earning power, as they are the two distinct and separate clam But, in the instant case, there is no apportionment of the amount towards loss
future earning power, since it is held by the Tribunal that even after the accident, the Claimant is working in the Telephone Department as Office
Assistant. This approach in my view, is erroneous.
Previously, he was working as Lineman going to different areas in his cycle According to P.W.1, since he could not do his. work as Lineman,
he was given the office was This does not mean that there cannot be any loss of future income, especially, when P.W.1 would specifically state that
the chances of increase in salary as a Lineman and further promotion have been affected. Under these circumstances, he would be entitled to
compensation under the head of loss of future promotion chances and loss of future enhancement of salary.
Though the cycle was damaged and claim was made for the damage of the cycle also, no amount has been awarded under the said head. The
transport charges also has not been awarded. Under these circumstances, the award is liable to be modified in the following manner:
(a) Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.25.000
(b) Compensation for permanent disability Rs.35,000
(c) Compensation for mental agony Rs. 10,000
(d) Compensation for loss of future prospectsRs.25,000
(e) Transport Charges Rs. 2,000
(f) Extra nourishment and medical expenses Rs. 2,000
(g) Damage to cycle Rs. 1,000
Total Rs. 1,00,000
Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the total compensation of
Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the
result, the appeal is allowed. No costs.