AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The Insurance Company is in appeal. One Gopi who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 13-4-2000 approached the Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- as compensation. Allegedly while he was riding a motorcycle he was hit down by an auto rickshaw insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The injured was a business man aged 56 at the time of the accident. During the pendency of the petition i.e., on 26-11-2004 the injured claimant died and his legal heirs got themselves impleaded as additional claimants. The learned Tribunal treating the claim as one for compensation for death awarded a sum of Rs. 1,99,500/- as compensation. This is under challenge in this appeal.
We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the Learned Counsel for the respondents claimants. We have also perused the impugned award.
The deceased Gopi sustained a head injury resulting in sub archnoid haematoma. Medical records reveal that he had focal seizures and cognitive decline. Subsequently he developed memory impairment and difficulty in speech. The records available would show that he was under treatment for the complications developed due to the head injury intermittently till the date of his death. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that after 10-10-2000 there was no treatment for the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. The evidence on record would reveal that the deceased developed complications slowly and ultimately there was large hyperdense stripe of blood attenuation at the front parietal area of brain with considerable mass effect resulting in the compression of the left lateral ventricle and significant midline shift to the right side. The deceased suffered a lot on account of the head injury and the resultant complications developed thereafter. Hence we endorse the view taken by the learned Tribunal that there was proximate connection between the injuries sustained by the deceased and the death. We see justification in treating the claim as one for compensation for death.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant further stated that even after treating the claim as one for compensation for death the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12000/- as compensation for loss of earning which is not allowable in a claim for compensation for death. We see considerable force in the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Hence we deduct the said amount from the total sum awarded.
We also notice some infirmity in the compensation awarded under other heads also. The deceased was 56 years old and towards loss of estate the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- . We are of the view that the said amount is exorbitant and we reduce the same to Rs. 5000/- .
However, considering the fact that the deceased was undergoing treatment consequent to the injuries sustained by him till his death, we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Thus we are awarding an additional sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering. The aforesaid calculation would take us to the conclusion that the amount already awarded by the Tribunal shall stand reduced by Rs. 22000/- . That means, the respondents claimants shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,77,500/- (199500 -- 22000) only as compensation. The modified award will carry the same rate of interest specified in the award.
The appeal is allowed and the award shall stand modified as above.