AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The claimant in O.P. (M.V.). No. 934/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him on account of the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, which was insured with the respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
S. No.
Head of claim
Amount awarded
1.
Loss of earnings
6,000.00
2.
Transport to hospital
2,000.00
3.
Treatment expenses
79,900.00
4.
Pain and sufferings
30,000.00
5.
Loss of amenities
12,000.00
Total
129,900.00
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred the above appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the insurance company.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of the doctor, PW 1, will go to show that on account of the injuries sustained, he requires continuous uritral dilatation during his life time and for single treatment, he will have to spend Rs. 500/-. Though no disability certificate was produced, the evidence of the doctor will go to show that nature of injuries sustained and its effect on the appellant resulted in disability. So the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under the head, "loss of earning capacity". Though the appellant had availed 114 days earned learned and four days loss of pay leave, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 6,000/- under the head, "loss of earnings", which is very low. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, the amount awarded under the heads, "pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life" is also less. No amount has been awarded under the heads, bystander''s expenses and extra nourishment, although he was treated inpatient for 20 days and sustained severe injuries. So, according to him, he is entitled to get enhanced compensation on all the heads.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the insurance company argued that PW 1 was not the doctor who treated the patient and so the Tribunal was perfectly justified in not relying on the evidence of PW 1. So, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation under the heads, "loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities" etc. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for.
We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that at the time of accident the appellant was working in India Coffee Board Workers'' Cooperative Society, Thrissur and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,180/-. It is also proved by Ext. A3 series of leave certificates that he availed leave from 19.7.2005 to 9.11.2005, out of which, 114 days was earned leave and four days was on loss of pay. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 6,000/- under the head, "loss of earning", taking only loss of salary as four days. But considering the leave taken by the claimant, we feel that he is entitled to get some compensation for loss of leave, which we will fix as Rs. 7,500/-. It is also seen from the documents produced that he was treated as inpatient for 20 days and he might have engaged a bystander to look after him during this period. But no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the head, "bystander''s expenses". We award Rs. 2,000/- under that head. No amount was awarded under the head, "extra nourishment" as well. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, he might have required some extra nourishment as well. So, we fix Rs. 5,000/- under that head. The doctor has stated that he requires continuous uritral dilatation for life long. An amount of Rs. 500/- will be required for single treatment. No amount was seen awarded under the head, "future treatment". Considering the nature of evidence adduced by PW 1, we award Rs. 20,000/- under that head. Considering the nature of evidence given by PW 1 and nature of personal inconvenience sustained by him on account of the injuries sustained, we feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head, "loss of amenities in life", is less. We award Rs. 30,000/- under that head. So the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 52,500/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the respondent is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till payment. Three months'' time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount.
With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.