AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.
C.M. Appl. No. 1015 of 2005:
This petition is to condone the delay of 61 days in filing a M.A.C.A. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
M.A.C.A. No. 727 of 2005:
The claimant is the Appellant. He - a Senior Manager of the Canara Bank, suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 5/9/97. There was total avulsion amputation of pulp of right great toe. He was an inpatient from 5/9/97 to 11/9/97. He allegedly suffered physical disability to the extent of 10%. He continued as an outpatient even after discharge. He had to avail leave for 52 days. The Tribunal, against a total claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-, awarded an amount of Rs. 53,250/- as per the details shown below:
Sl.No.
Heads
Award
1
Loss of earning
Rs. 10,000/-
2
Transport to Hospital
1,500/-
3
Extra Nourishment
2,000/-
4
Damage to clothing articles
250/-
Others: Medical expenses
5
(Bills - Rs.13,447.13)
15,000/-
6
Future medical expenses
Nil
7
Pain and suffering
9,500/-
8
Permanent disability
15,000/-
9
Loss of earning power
Nil
Total
53,250/-
6% interest
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant/ claimant and the 3rd Respondent/insurance company. The challenge is only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to specifically explain the nature of the challenge which the Appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant limits the challenge to three specific grounds. The Appellant was on leave for 52 days on account of the accident and the consequent treatment. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 16,531/- as per the salary certificate produced. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning at Rs. 10,000/- is, in these circumstances, insufficient and inadequate, contends the counsel.
The learned Counsel then contends that a disability of 10% resulting from the loss of big toe of the right leg is certified in the disability certificate. Considering his employment as a Senior Manager in a bank this disability may not have reflections and ramifications on his earing power; but the quality of enjoyment of the life is impaired considerably. Only a total amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded as compensation. This is too inadequate. The same may reasonably be enhanced, contends the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Lastly and finally, the learned Counsel contends that in any view of the matter, interest at the rate of 6% is totally unjustified. Interest must have been awarded, contends counsel and we agree, at least at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition to the date of payment/deposit.
The learned Counsel for the insurance company contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of permanent disability is reasonable considering the date of the accident.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the Appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 26,000/- as per the details shown below:
Loss of earnings
(15000/30 x 52 minus Rs,10,000/-)
Rs.16,000/-
Note: Only Rs.15,000/- reckoned as monthly income taking into account the income tax payable.
Permanent disability/loss of amenities.
(Rs.25,000/- minus Rs.15,000/-)
Rs.10,000/-
Total
Rs.26,000/-
In the result:
(a) This appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand only) as shown above in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal.
(c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of payment/deposit.
(d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.