New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs P. Sekar and Others

S. Vimala, J.�The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. Cross-objection has been filed by the claimant complaining about the inadequacy of compensation. The claimant Sekar, aged 22, employed as a mason, earning a sum of Rs. 3,750 per month, met with an accident on 5th November, 2003 and in respect of the injuries and permanent disablement suffered, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000. As against the claim made for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition. The break-up details of the compensation are as under:

The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, having regard to the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2003.

On the other hand, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the claimant that though the Tribunal has accepted the fact that the claimant has suffered disablement, the amounts which should have been awarded for the claims made under various heads like loss of enjoyment of amenities, partial loss of earnings, extra-nourishment and transport expenses, have been disregarded by the Claims Tribunal.

In order to appreciate the contentions raised on both the sides, it is necessary to look into the evidences adduced before the Court.

The doctor has been examined to speak about the permanent disablement, who has assessed the percentage of disability as 54%. The Tribunal, giving its own explanation, has stated that only one bone has been broken in the leg and therefore, the percentage of disability should be taken only as 45%. During the cross-examination of the claimant, he has been asked to state whether he was attending to the agricultural work during the time at which he was giving evidence. The claimant has given a generalised statement that he is attending to the agricultural work. Performing work with the same quantity and quality of work with 54% disability, as he was doing before the accident, should have been the relevant consideration for the Tribunal. Instead of purposive interpretation of evidence, the Tribunal has adopted a technical interpretation and has given a finding that there is no loss of income for the claimant as he was doing agricultural work. The Tribunal has described the evidence of the claimant as an admission, without understanding the implication of the admission. Therefore, the finding that there is no loss of income on account of the accident/on account of 54% disability cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the documents filed are incorrect or they have been fabricated, the Tribunal should have considered the claim having regard to the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the disablement complained of. Without taking those aspects into consideration, the Tribunal had been trying to trace out contents of the documents in rejecting the claim for extra-nourishment. It goes without saying that anybody who is suffering injuries, is likely to spend some money towards extra nourishment and transport expenses also. Considering the period of treatment and the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as follows:

A sum of Rs. 5,000 each is awarded towards medical expenses, transport expenses and extra-nourishment. With regard to loss of enjoyment of amenities, a sum of Rs. 10,000 is awarded. With regard to partial loss of earning for a period of three months, a sum of Rs. 3,750 is awarded for each month, totalling to Rs. 11,250. The amount awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced by Rs. 10,000. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering stands modified to Rs. 15,000. In the result, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 1,61,250 detailed as under:

In the award the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 46,250. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. The enhanced amount of compensation is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of enhancement, i.e., today. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire deposited amount.