AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant, a police head constable sustained several injuries detailed as follows by the learned Tribunal in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the driver of a vehicle duly insured with the second respondent Insurance Company:- 1. Patient has pain and tenderness over the fracture site (L).
Patient has constant pain (L) knee joint due to post traumatic premature secondary osteoarthritis.
Patient has partial ankylosis (L) knee joint he is able to flex his (L) knee up to 900.
Patient was wasting of his. thigh knee. leg by 3 cms due to disuse atrophy following immobilization.
Patient has pain over his (L) hip due to reactive arthritis following the fracture.
Movements of the (L) hip is restricted to the terminal degrees.
Patient has bad pain over his (L) sacroiliac joint due to reactive arthritis produced as the sequiae of the fracture.
He has radiating pain due to sciatica produced as the sequiae of the fracture.
Movement of his spine is restricted to terminal degrees.
Patient has medial ligament laxity due to the sequiae of the fracture.
He is unable to squat or stand for a long time due to the sequiae of the fracture.
Due to the above disabilities, he is unable to do his work smoothly.
The appellant''s complaint is that the learned tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for the various injuries suffered by him in the accident. His claim was for a total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs whereas the Tribunal award him only Rs. 26,350/- under various heads. According to him he has not been awarded adequate compensation by the Tribunal under any of the heads.
We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant who argued that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The argument of Sri. A.R. George, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company was that there is no such inadequacy and that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation to the appellant under all the heads. Sri. George argued that even after the accident the appellant continued to serve the police as head constable and he drew his monthly salary even thereafter.
Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the impugned award, we are of the view that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant. Looking at the details of the injuries suffered by the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has not been awarded adequate compensation towards pain and suffering. We therefore, award to the appellant Rs. 8,000/- more towards pain and suffering.
Similarly, we notice inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards loss of amenities also. We therefore award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards loss of amenities.
We award to the appellant Rs. 200/- towards bystander''s expenses as it is in evidence that the appellant was in hospital for one day.
The learned Tribunal found that the appellant had suffered permanent partial disability of 5% on account of the injuries. The learned Tribunal determined the disability compensation adopting the notional monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- as well as adopting a lower multiplier of 8. According to us the adoption of lower multiplier was unjustified. The learned Tribunal was bound to adopt the multiplier which is applicable to the persons coming in the age group of the appellant. Similarly, we are also of the view that the notional income of Rs. 2,000/- adopted by the Tribunal is too low. We adopt Rs. 3,000/- as the notional income for the purpose of calculating the disability compensation. When the disability compensation is re-worked adopting the notional income as well as the multiplier as above, it will stand enhanced by Rs. 17,400/- and we award that amount to the appellant.
Thus in all we award a sum of Rs. 30,600/- over and above what is awarded by the learned Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is allowed as above. No costs.