AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The claimant Smt. Roshini Nagpal, aged about 35 years suffered amputation of her left leg above knee, in the accident that occurred on 3.7.2008. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Wockhardt Hospital, wherein she was treated as an inpatient from 3.7.2008 to 6.8.2008. During treatment, she underwent surgeries. She underwent operations on 3.7.2008, 4.7.2008, 5.7.2008, 5.8.2008 and on 7.7.2008 imputation of her left leg was done. Once again, she was admitted to Sita Bhateja Hospital on 11.8.2008 and discharged on 13.8.2008. She has taken physiotherapy treatment in Wockhardtt Hospital. Subsequently, she admitted to Sita Bhateja Hospital on 19.8.2008 to 20.8.2008, wherein she underwent operation and wound debridement was done. Once again, she was admitted to Wockhardtt Hospital from 25.8.2008 to 31.8.2008 and underwent operation and wound debridement was done. Thereafter, she was again admitted to Wockhardtt Hospital on 6.9.2008, 11.11.2008, 18.12.2008. She was admitted to St. John''s Hospital for a day. The doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered 85% of disability to the lower limb and 47.5% to the whole body. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 41,63,800/-.
MFA. No. 6311/2011 is filed by the Insurance Company praying for reduction of compensation, whereas MFA. No. 11933/2011 is filed by the claimant praying for enhancement of compensation.
Since the claimant has suffered amputation of left leg and has undergone number of operations in different hospitals, she must have suffered lot of pain and agony. She was inpatient for more than about two months. She will have to be without her left leg throughout her lifer. She was just aged 35 years at the time of accident. She being the businessman having small shop at Jayanagar has to face such situation all through her life. Thus, the claimant shall be awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of ''pain and suffering'' and Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of ''loss of future amenities''.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,70,200/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. Learned advocates on both sides on verifying the records maintained by the Tribunal admit that an amount of Rs. 3,50,200/- needs to be deducted out of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below towards medical expenses, inasmuch as the medical bills for Rs. 3,50,200/- are produced in duplicate. Thus, an amount of Rs. 3,50,200/- needs to be deducted. Consequently, Rs. 17,20,000/- shall be awarded under the head of medical expenses''.
Ex. P26 and P31 reveal that the total income from the business of the firm of the claimant for the year 2006-07 was Rs. 3,06,630/- and Rs. 3,46,650/- for the 2007-08. In that context, Sri Krishnaswamy, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company argues that there is no loss of future income suffered by the claimant and therefore, she may not be entitled to any compensation under the head of ''loss of future income''.
The said submission is opposed by the learned advocate appearing for the claimant that the claimant might not have suffered loss of income for one year. That does not mean that she will not suffer any loss of income in future. In addition to the same, he submits that the claimant has to engage an Assistant to assist her in the business and she has to pay some amount to the said Assistant.
We find considerable force in the said submission of the claimant. Though the claimant might not have suffered loss of income for one year, it is not open for the Insurance Company to contend that she will not suffer any loss of income in future. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 6000/- p.m. Since the claimant''s left leg is amputated above knee, she will have to take the assistance of somebody to help her in the business establishment. She will have to pay around Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month to such person. Thus, we quantify the income of the claimant at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Having regard to the age of the claimant, the proper multiplier to be adopted is ''16'' and the same is rightly adopted by the Tribunal.
It is also relevant to note that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability of 80%. The doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered 47.5% of disability to the whole body. Since the expert in the field has decided the percentage of disability based on actual facts, the Tribunal should not have re-assessed the disability at 80%. Under the facts and circumstances, we propose to take 50% disability for the whole body.
Based on the aforementioned facts and figures, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 9,60,000/-, towards loss of future income. In addition to the same, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period (about one year).
We also find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of future medical expenses'' is on the higher side. The cost of a Prosthesis is approximately Rs. 2,80,000/- which is clear from the documents at Ex. P34 and P35 and the evidence of PW.3. The claimant has to utilize atleast two more Prosthesis in future during her lifetime. Thus, we propose to award Rs. 6,00,000/- under the head of future medical expenses''.
Thus, the claimant shall be awarded total compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/-. Accordingly, the following order is made:-
The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/- (Rupees thirty-eight lakhs only).
The amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 41,63,800/- to Rs. 38,00,000/-.
MFA. No. 6311/2011 is allowed accordingly.
MFA. No. 11933/2011 is dismissed
The rate of interest and deposit of the amount in the Nationalized Bank shall remain as directed by the Tribunal.
The amount in deposit if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal below.