AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner in a motor accident claim is the appellant herein. He has suffered injuries in a motor accident on 27.12.2004 involving a vehicle insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. The appellant was a toddy tapper by profession. He claimed Rs. 4,000/- as his monthly income. He was hospitalised for four days. He suffered fractures to his vertebral column at the lumbar region. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
The appellant is challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded. The counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal went wrong in reducing the monthly income to Rs. 2,000/- instead of accepting the claim of Rs. 4,000/-. Considering the serious injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal went wrong in limiting the compensation for pain and sufferings to Rs. 6,000/- and the compensation for loss of amenities to Rs. 1,000/-. According to the appellant, he gave oral evidence to the effect that even now he is unable to climb coconut trees for his avocation. Therefore, he was entitled to compensation on account of the loss of earning power as well, which was not awarded, is the contention raised.
We have considered the contentions of the appellant and the counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.
There is no evidence other than the interested testimony of the appellant himself regarding his monthly income. In the above circumstances, we do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal fixing the monthly income notionally as Rs. 2,000/- per month. But it is an admitted fact that the appellant was hospitalised for four days. For four days'' hospitalisation, the award of compensation for loss of earnings for two months appears to be correct. Therefore, there cannot be any addition in respect of the same. But from Ext.A6 discharge summary, we find that the appellant suffered very serious injuries to his vertebral column and he suffered fractures on his L1, LT & L3 vertebrae. But unfortunately for the appellant, the appellant did not adduce evidence regarding his permanent disability. Since on account of the fracture the appellant would have suffered acute pain and discomfort, we are of opinion that the compensation for pain and suffering of Rs. 6,000/- is too low. We enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Because of the fracture, he will certainly be deprived of amenities in life to a great extent. Therefore, we increase the compensation for loss of amenities to Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only). Although the appellant had not produced any disability certificate, we are of opinion that because of the fractures to his three vertebra in the lumbar region, his future ability to climb trees would certainly be impaired to a great extent.
Therefore, we are inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for disability as well. The appellant would also be entitled to some more amount towards extra nourishment. We add Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) more under that head. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a further compensation of Rs. 30,500/- (Rupees thirty thousand and five hundred only) in addition to what has been granted by the Tribunal. The respondent is liable to pay the said additional compensation as well. The same would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from today.
The appeal is disposed of as above.