AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The appellant sustained serious injuries - depressed fracture (R) frontal bone with extra durahaematoma - in a road traffic accident which occurred while he, a minor boy aged eight years was hit down by a car driven rashly and negligently by the second respondent. The Tribunal under the impugned award found that the accident had occurred only because of the rashness and negligence of the second respondent and that in respect of the offending car, the third respondent Insurance Company had issued a policy which was valid and subsisting at the time when the accident had occurred. The grievance voiced by the appellant in this appeal is that he did not receive adequate compensation for the injuries sustained by him. His claim was for Rs. 2 lakhs and the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 45,250/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. According to the appellant there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to him under various heads including the head of medical expenses. In fact against I.A.1513/10 and I.A.1197/12 the appellant has produced medical bills for a sum of Rs. 7,410/- and Rs. 372/- respectively. Having seen the bills, we find them to be genuine and we are of the opinion that the total value covered by the bills and additional amount towards transferring to hospital can be allowed to the appellant. We therefore mark the additional documents produced along with I.A.1513/10 as Ext.A10 series. We mark the documents produced along with I.A.1197/12 as Ext.A11 series. Inclusive of the total value covered by Ext.A10 series and Ext.A11 series and the travelling expenses incurred by the appellant in connection with the treatment covered by Ext.A10 and Ext.A11, we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 8,500/- towards medical expenses and incidental travel.
On noticing the seriousness of the injuries suffered by he appellant we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- presently awarded towards pain and suffering is inadequate. We award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards pain and suffering.
Similar inadequacy is noticed by us in the compensation awarded to the appellant towards loss of amenities. Hence, we award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards loss of amenities.
We find gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded to the appellant towards attendant expenses (bystander''s charges). We therefore award to the appellant Rs. 1,400/- more towards bystanders charges.
Obviously for the reason that the appellant did not produce any disability certificate, the learned Tribunal did not award him any disability compensation. Having seen the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant which includes serious head injury we feel that these injuries had serious impact on his general health and the appellant would continue to have discomforts for a fairly long period of his future life. Taking into account the continuing discomforts which the appellant will have to suffer, we award to the appellant a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus in all the appellant is awarded a total amount of Rs. 34,900/- over and above what has been awarded by the leaned Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal in its original award.