AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—In an accident, which occurred on 07.07.2009, a 14 year old boy sustained injuries in the fore hand and elbow. Immediately, he was taken to Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem. He was unconscious. He was suspected of Paresis (left). Besides, there was an abrasion in the left fore arm, punctured wound at left arm, mild swelling over the occipital region. He was admitted in the Trauma ward. He was hospitalized between 07.07.2009 and 03.08.2009, for nearly a month. At the time of accident, he was studying in Standard IX. A case in Crime No. 379 of 2009, has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 30 AD 6559, insured with the appellant insurance company. On behalf of the minor, his father has filed MCOP No. 596 of 2009 on the file of the MACT (II Additional Sub Judge), Salem. Before the claims tribunal, father of the minor/injured examined himself as PW 1 and reiterated the manner of accident, nature of injuries, period of treatment and the expenditure incurred. PW 2, is the Doctor, who issued the disability certificate. Ex. P1, dated 08.07.2009, copy of FIR, Ex. P2, dated 07.07.2009, copy of Accident Register, Ex. P3, dated 06.08.2009, discharge summary, Ex. P5, dated 17.07.2009, copy of MVI Report, Ex. P6, dated 18.07.2009, copy of rough sketch, Ex. P7, dated 07.08.2009, copy of charge sheet, Ex. P8, dated 28.08.2009, copy of extract in STC 711-2009, Ex. P9, series of medical bills, Ex. P10, copy of the driving licence, Ex. P11 dated 22.02.2012, Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Neelambal Subramaniam Hr. Sec. School, Salem. 5, Ex. P12, copy of the Insurance policy, Ex. P13, dated Nil. 4.2012, copy of the Secondary School leaving certificate, Ex. P14, Disability certificate, Ex. P15, X-ray receipt and Ex. P16, x-ray, have been marked on the side of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence, is adduced by the respondents.
Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 30 AD 6559 insured with the appellant company. The claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,76,621/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5%, from the date of claim as hereunder.
Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, has filed this appeal. Assailing the correctness of the award, Mr. T. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of Rs. 2,76,621/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim is on the higher side. According to him, the claims tribunal ought not to have considered the disability assessed by the doctor, without following the medical guidelines. He farther submitted that the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- under head pain and sufferings, is excessive. Except the above, no other grounds have been urged.
Ex. P2 dated 17.07.2009, accident register, reads as follow:
SRI GOKULAM HOSPITAL
Meyyanur, Salem
Accident Register No. 9724
Hospital No. 5316 Date & Time 7/7/09 20:16
Name Balaji
Age: 14 yrs Sex : Male Occupation: ______
Address: S/o. Mr. Paramasivam, 5/64A,
Ramak Goundnur Kattu Valvavu Ayyam Perumpatti PO, Salem Dt.
Identification Marks: 1. ABM below � knee joint
Another ABM over upper (L) and thigh Brought by: Baskar (Neighbourhood)
Whether Police informed: Yes
Declaration:.......
Nature of injury and treatment
(State simple, grievous or opinion reserved) Alleged H/o RTA while driving a 2 wheeler hit by another 2 wheeler on 7.7.09 at 7.00 pm at Sundar Nagar Bus stop,
Muthunayakanpatti main road.
H/o LOC(+)
No H/o fits
No H/o ENT bleeding
BP: 100/80 mmHg PR: 47%
RR: 22%
O/E: pt unconscious
CVS: SIS 2(+) RS: NVBS
P/A: Soft: CNS: unconscious. PERL (+)
GCS: E1V1M4/15
L/E: (1) Abrasion over (L) forearm
2) punctured wound at lower (L) arm
3) mild swelling over occipital region admitted in Trauma Ward.
(Dr. D. Kanimozhi)
Minor respondent was unconscious, after the accident. Ex. P3, dated 06.08.2009, wound certificate reads as follows;
Injuries found:
(1) Abrasion over (L) forearm
2) punctured wound at lower (L) arm
3) mild swelling over occipital region
CT Brain - a) left parietal and temporal contusion
b) Sphenoid haemosinus.
Injury No. 3 is grievous and injuries 1 and 2 are simple in nature.
Ex. P3, dated 03.08.2009, Wound certificate makes it clear that the minor who sustained a head injury was treated, for nearly a month from 07.07.2009 to 03.08.2009. The consultants, who attended on him, were the Neurosurgeon, Chest Physician, General Physician and Gastro-Entrologist. After nearly a month''s treatment, the Neuro Surgeon has opined that the minor respondent had suffered "L (1/2) paresis. The claimant has also been advised physio/speech therapy. Patient has been advised, for review after one week.
Paresis as per Taber''s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (17th Edition), is as follows:
Paresis: 1. Partial or incomplete paralysis. 2. An organic mental disease with somatic, irritative, and a paralytic focal symptoms and signs running a slow, chronic, progressive course.
SYM: May simulate any psychoneurosis or psychosis. Pupillary changes, facial tremors, tremors of the lips and tongue, speech disturbances. Usually Argyll Robertson pupil, impaired vision, headache, speech slurred with letters and syllables often omitted. As the disease progresses, the patient demonstrates a disregard for social convention and moral standards. Memory is defective; depression and dementia are present; epileptic convulsions; unequal ex-aggeration of the reflexes. Always present is a positive serologic test for syphilis in the spinal fluid with increase of protein and lymphocytes.
ETIOL: Diffuse and focal involvement of brain and spinal cord due to syphilis, usually occurring 5 to 15 years after primary infection.
PATH: A diffuse meningoencephalitia with degenerative changes dependent upon vascular and toxic factors.
Paresis as per Stedman''s Medical Dictionary (27th Edition), is as follows:
Paresis: partial or incomplete paralysis [G.a letting go, slackening, paralysis, fr. Paritemi, to let go]
divergence p., an esodeviation of the eyes that is greater in the distance than near, which may be a sign of central nervous system disease or a mild bilateral 6th nerve palsy.
It could be seen from the medical evidence that the minor respondent aged 14 years, who sustained a head injury, even after a month''s, treatment has been diagnosed of paresis. PW 2 Doctor, who clinically examined the minor respondent, with reference to medical records and the discomfort experienced by the respondent, due to the injury in the head, has assessed the disability at 45%. During the cross examination, he has admitted that he did not peruse Ex. P16, x-ray. For the abovesaid reason, the claims tribunal has reduced the extent of disability to 30%.
The claims tribunal has failed to consider the contents of the discharge summary and other medical records produced by the respondent/minor claimant. Even taking it for granted that PW 2, Doctor, has not perused Ex. P16, x-ray, that should not be the ground, for restricting the disability to 30%. The claims tribunal ought to have perused the other medical records, Exs. P2 to 4, to arrive at a decision, as to whether the extent of disability, assessed by the PW 2, doctor, was excessive or not. The injury is in the head. Minor respondent, would have experienced severe pain, at the time of accident. He was hospitalized for nearly one month. Discharge summary further reads that there was tracheosomy. On 03.08.2009, when Ex. P4, discharge summary was issued, PW 2, Doctor has suggested physio/speech therapy, which clearly indicates that the injuries were not only grievous, but also caused disablement, warranting assessment towards loss of future earning capacity of the minor respondent, in future. With the abovesaid extent of disablement due to left paresis, certainly the respondent would suffer in future. The 1st respondent/claimant would have experienced severe pain and suffering, at the time of accident, during the period of treatment and later. Pain is one, which is experienced momentarily, but it may continue, even for a longer period, depending upon the gravity and sites of the injury, whereas, suffering is loss of happiness, on account of the same. Pain has no difference between Rich and Raff.
A sum of Rs. 1,06,621/- has been awarded for medical expenses. Barring the same, the quantum of compensation awarded to the minor respondent, for the extent of disablement, assessed by the Doctor, cannot be said to be grossly excessive, warranting interference. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent, to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, if not deposited earlier, to the credit of MCOP No. 596 of 2009 on the file of MACT (II Additional Sub Judge), Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the entire award amount shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks in fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme initially for a period of three years. The interest accruing on the award amount shall be paid to the 2nd respondent/father of the minor once in three months, till he attains majority.