AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—Claimant is the Appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 11.10.2007. Against a claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 37,245/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award, which we extract below:
i)
Transport to hospital
:
Rs. 500/-
ii)
Extra nourishment
:
Rs. 500/-
iii)
Loss of earnings
:
Rs. 3,500/-
iv)
Bystander''s expenses
:
Rs. 600/-
v)
Treatment expenses
:
Rs. 17,145/-
vi)
Pain and suffering
:
Rs. 12,000/-
vii)
Loss of amenities
:
Rs. 3,000/-
Total
:
Rs. 37,245/-
The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. The Appellant was employed as a marble worker/coolie. He was in-patient for a period of three days. He had suffered injuries including a fracture on the left leg. There is nothing to show that he has suffered any permanent disability. The Tribunal accepted the entire bills of 17,145/- to show treatment expenses. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded. In addition, even though No. disability is proved, a further amount of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of amenities.
Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned Counsel for the Appellant only generally raises a complaint that amounts awarded are not adequate. Specific reference has not been made to the fracture suffered by the Appellant, contends the counsel.
We have gone through the amounts awarded under different heads. We have considered the nature of injury and the period of treatment and the nature of treatment. We are unable to agree that the amount awarded under any specific head deserves interference in appeal. Altogether an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
We are, in any view of the matter, satisfied that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal does not warrant appellate interference by invoking our jurisdiction u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So this appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed.