AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ravi, J.
On 24.1.1998, the appellant sustained injuries when the autorickshaw in which he was travelling capsized. In the claim petition filed, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.94,870/-. The appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.
Heard Sri K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri PMM Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the Insurer.
Ext.A1 certificate dated 18.4.2007 issued by PW3 doctor says that the appellant has sustained atrophied left testis. Ext.A3 wound certificate dated 24.1.1998 shows that the appellant sustained abrasion over the right foot, left foot, right thigh and had injuries to the left knee. Ext.A4 treatment certificate shows that the appellant was hospitalised between 24.1.1998 and 9.2.1998. The certificate shows that the appellant sustained multiple soft tissue injury and traumatic injury to the left testis. Ext.A6 shows that he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode between 2.5.1998 and 9.5.1998 and was treated for undescended testis and that the testis which was in the superficial inguinal pouch was mobilised and brought to the scrotum and fixed in subdartos pouch. The treatment book would show that he was reviewed for about nine times. The appellant examined himself as PW4 and has given details about the difficulties that he had undergone in Gulf where he was working and he came back after 3½ years. Ext.C1 certificate issued by the District Medical Board, District Hospital, Manjeri shows that the appellant has complained of loss of libido and erectile dysfunction. The Medical Board noticed that the testis are in scrotum and that there was no obvious permanent deformity detected clinically. It was noticed that his permanent partial disability is nil. The matter was taken up before the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Calicut and the Board found that the permanent disability is 10% and issued Ext.C2 disability certificate to that effect. PW1 Doctor who had examined the appellant found that the appellant's testis was normal. PW3 another Doctor, who had issued Ext.A1 certificate which would show that the appellant's left testis has been destroyed partially, has stated that it will be difficult for the appellant to have children, in view of the low active sperm count. He has however stated in cross examination that he was not a Urologist and the actual position can be known only if a Urologist examines the appellant. Not much reliance can be placed in the oral evidence tendered by PW3. The counsel for the appellant contends that the amounts granted by the Tribunal under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future treatment need to be increased. The counsel also submits that the amounts granted towards bystander expenses and transportation needs to be increased. Regarding loss of earnings, it is submitted that the Tribunal had granted loss of earnings only for three months, which ought to have been at least five months having regard to the two hospitalisations that the appellant had to undergo. The counsel also submits that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month. It is argued that the income ought to have been determined on the basis of the minimum wages which was available in the State. There is also a claim for 40% future prospects.
The accident occurred in the year 1998. The claim petition is seen to have been preferred in the year 2006. The claim petition shows the age of the appellant as 36. The documents relating to the treatment shows his age as 29.
Having heard the counsel on either side and bearing in mind the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], I am of the opinion that the notional income of Rs.3,000/- fixed in 1998 is reasonable. Regarding loss of earnings, the appellant was hospitalised twice between 24.1.1998 and 9.5.1998. In the above circumstances, the appellant is justified in claiming loss of earning for a period of 5 months. Hence an additional amount of Rs.6,000/- (3000x2) is awarded under that head. Regarding the claim for future treatment, no evidence has been let in and as such the Tribunal cannot be found fault for not granting any compensation towards future treatment. The bystander's expense has been allowed at Rs.150/- per day for 25 days of hospitalisation and since the accident happened in 1998, I find that the said amount is also reasonable. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the difficulties that the appellant was facing as a result of the accident, I am of the opinion that amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities need to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each. The appellant will hence be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Regarding the expenses towards transportation, it is pointed out that the appellant had to undergo four transportations at the time of hospitalisation and nine further transportations during the review, totalling to 13 occasions. The Tribunal has granted Rs.3,000/- towards transportation expenses. I am of the opinion that the same has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. An additional sum of Rs.7,000/- is to be awarded under that head. Since the injury is not an injury which affects his occupation, there is no scope for adding any amount towards future prospects. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are reasonable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is awarded an enhanced compensation of ₹88,000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (29.12.2006) till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellant shall be in accordance with law.