AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sampath, J.—In an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insurer, the respondent No. 2, the appellant
suffered serious injuries. The appellant filed M.C.O.P. No. 2706 of 1991 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, claiming
compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000. The claimant has filed the appeal for the balance sum of Rs. 58,000. The respondents have not
filed any appeal questioning the finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 1.
The finding is confirmed.
As regards the quantum, the claimant has suffered injuries in the right upper arm and the right leg and the disability has been quantified at 20 per
cent. For medical expenses, he made a claim for a sum of Rs. 21,000 which was supported by vouchers and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs. 20,000. As regards the injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000. As regards the pain and suffering, the Tribunal
has awarded a meagre amount, viz., Rs. 1,000. It is seen that the claimant was an in-patient for a period of three months initially and thereafter for
another two months period which was necessitated by the fact that he got infection of implants and the implants had to be removed. Totally, he had
been an in-patient for five months and during the period he should have undergone pain and suffering and the Tribunal should have quantified it at a
higher figure. In my view, a sum of Rs. 10,000 under this head will be reasonable and adequate. As regards transport charges the Tribunal
awarded Rs. 1,000 which can be confirmed. As regards the extra nourishment the Tribunal has not awarded anything. The claimant has made a
demand for a sum of Rs. 3,750 and in my view a sum of Rs. 2,000 would be proper and adequate.
The most important aspect relates to his loss of leave for five months. It is the contention on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the claimant
was actually paid by the bank, during the period when he was hospitalised. The service regulations of the bank in which the claimant is employed
have been made available, it is seen that-
On and from 1.1.1990, privilege leave may be accumulated up to not more than 240 days except where leave has been applied for and it has been
refused and further that where an officer retires from the bank''s services he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any
period of privilege leave that he has accumulated.
It is not in dispute that what the claimant had availed of was the privilege leave and at the time he retires from service he will not be in a position
to encash the same. This would, therefore, entitle the claimant to be paid a salary for the five months period when he was treated in the hospital. It
is not disputed that his salary during the five months period amounts to a sum of Rs. 32,750. The total thus comes to a sum of Rs. 86,750.
The Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has refused the relief. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal will
stand modified and instead of Rs. 42,000 awarded, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 86,750. In other aspects the award of the
Tribunal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed in part, however, with no costs.