AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellants are the widow, children and aged mother of one Rahulan who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 04/09/2000.
Allegedly while the deceased Rahulan was standing near the Railway Goods Yard at Aluva in connection with his duty as a loading and unloading worker, the lorry driven by the 1st respondent knocked him down. As a result of the accident Rahulan sustained injuries. Allegedly he was hospitalised on the date of the accident and he continued as inpatient till 17/03/01. Though discharged on 17/03/01, he breathed his last on 22/03/01. Thus, the claim was preferred by his widow, children and aged mother. It is alleged that the death of Rahulan was the proximate result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The learned Tribunal after consideration of the evidence treated the claim as one for compensation for injury and awarded a sum of Rs. 80,250/-. The adequacy of the compensation is under challenge in this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. We have also perused the impugned award.
During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the appellants took us to the relevant page of the award which details out the injuries. He was admitted to the hospital with complaints of pain over left shoulder. Clinical examination revealed a suspected fracture to left scapula. The medical records would reveal that he had cardiological consultation also to rule out the possibility of rupture of heart valve. Ext.A6 is the Discharge Summary issued by the Cardiology Department of Samaritan HospitalPazhanganad. The said certificate would reveal that he was admitted to the hospital on 04/09/2000 and was discharged on 17/03/2001. The Doctor who had examined the deceased noted the following history:
Mr.K.D.Rahulan was admitted there on 04/09/2000 with history of RTA. He was referred from Karothukuzhi Hospital Clinical examination revealed congenital heart disease. VSD with RAH and left shoulder sprain. He was given strapping of the left shoulder. He developed severe extensive orthostatic pheumonitis and septicemia on 11/09/2000. He was treated with I/V Ceftnaxone Tobraneg, Decengestive theraphy and other supportive measures. He developed cardiac decompensation and renal failure. On many occasions he developed severe hypertension and low cardiac output state. He was managed with I/V Dobbtamine high does of I/V Lasix, ACE inhibitors, Oigoxin and other supportive measures. His septicemia and respiratory infection were controlled with antibiotics. However, he continued to be in congestive heart failure. Subsequently he developed jaundice, which was due to hepatic congestion secondary to cardiac failure. Through out the hospital stay he was on high dose of Lasix, ACE inhibitors and supportive decongestive measures. His renal failure become better with I/V Manitol and high dose of I/V Lasix which were continued for many days. He was in the hospital during most of the above mentioned period. Throughout the period he was symptomatic and his symptoms were partially controlled by active decongestive theraphy.
According to the learned counsel for the appellants the deceased being a loading and unloading worker was earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-. Ext.A7 was relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants to substantiate their argument.
The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company per contra would argue that Ext.A7 was not properly proved and thus, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-. We notice that the accident was of the year, 2000 and the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of the accident. So it is only reasonable to hold that he might have earned at least Rs. 2,500/- per month by engaging himself as a loading and unloading worker. The medical records would reveal that he might not have been able to do any work at least for a period of six months. So towards loss of earning for six months at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for loss of earning. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on this count. Hence we find that the appellants will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 9,000/towards loss of earnings. Towards bystander''s expenses (Nursing Assistance) the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. As the deceased had been bedridden for more than 180 days, we are of the view that the bystander''s expenses at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day could have been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. We find that the appellants are entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 33,000/- as bystander''s expenses. Towards transportation to hospital only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded. Medical records would reveal that he was admitted to two hospitals. Hence, towards transportation to hospital we award an additional sum of Rs. 2,000/-. As the deceased was bedridden for six months, we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation for extra nourishment. Thus we award an additional sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment. The long period of hospitalisation as revealed from Ext.A6 Discharge Summary would lead us to a conclusion that the deceased might have undoubtedly suffered pain for quite a number of days. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferings. According to us, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is too low. Hence, we award an additional sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Evidently the deceased was not in a position to move out for a good number of days. Hence, for loss of amenities in life some amount has to be awarded. Hence, we award a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards compensation for loss of pleasures and enjoyment in life for the period during which he was bedridden.
The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the close proximity of the death of the deceased with the date of discharge would show that the death was the immediate result of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would show that there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the death and the injuries sustained by the deceased. We do notice that no postmortem was conducted after his death. We also notice the finding in Ext.A6 that the deceased was having congenital heart ailment. However, as the death had occurred on 22/03/01 i.e. after five days of discharge from the hospital where he had undergone treatment, we are of the view that the injuries might have accelerated the death of the deceased. This aspect was taken into account by the learned Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded. But as the deceased was only 42 years at the time of the accident, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in consideration of the premature death is inadequate. Thus we award an additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- under that head. Thus in total the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 97,000/-over and above what was awarded by the Tribunal. The above amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
The appeal is allowed. The award shall stand modified as above.