AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The claimant had suffered an amputation below knee. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,05,000/-. The claimant was a student undergoing JBT training. As regards the loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal had taken the income to be around Rs. 1200/-, adopted 60% on that for determining the loss of earning capacity and adopted a multiplier of 16. I will not find any reason to modify the same having regard to the fact that there was no particular evidence brought out as to the scale of income which was possible at the relevant time. Even the choice of multiplier was appropriate for the injury for, it has been worked out as suggested in Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act. However, I find that the claimant has not been appropriately compensated for the loss of amenities for life for a young person of 20 years who had lost his foot and the loss of prospect of marriage. I rework the compensation under the various heads in the manner tabulated below:
Injury Cases
Age:
19�
Period of Hospitalization 16.4.96 to 31.05.96
Occupation - Student - JBT
Heads of Claim
Tribunal
High Court
Sr.No.
Amount Rs.
Amount Rs.
1.
Loss of income from to
2.
Medical Expenses:
(i)
Medicines
45,000
(ii)
Hospital Charges
50,000
(iii)
Attendant Charges
5000
(iv)
Special Diet
7500
3.
Transport
-
2500
4.
Pain and Suffering - per fracture/per surgery
20,000
25,000
5.
Disability
60%
60%
6.
Loss of earning capacity
60%
60%
Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier
1,34,400
1,34,500
7.
Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities
75,000
8.
Loss of prospect of marriage
25,000
Total
2,05,000/-
3,19,500/-
The total compensation will be, therefore, Rs. 3,19,500/-. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The Tribunal has found that there was a case of contributory negligence by the driver of the bus and the driver of the truck against which it struck. The claimant was a passenger in the bus. This would mean that it was a case of composite negligence qua the claimant and the claimant shall be entitled to enforce it against any or all of them and the liability shall be joint and several. Amongst the Respondents themselves, namely, between the owner of the bus and the truck, it would mean an equal liability of apportionment and anyone party may apply for contribution after satisfying the award in execution proceedings without having to resort to any independent action for contribution.
The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.