S RAMASWAMY Vs. SOMASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellaat is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted to the respondent who was injured. He suffered only one injury in the accident that occurred on 8. 12. 1996 between a Bajaj Kawasaki motor bike which dashed against another Bajaj Kawasaki motor bike in which one of the respondent was a pillion rider. The finding of negligence has not been challenged and the same is confirmed. We are concerned only with the quantum. A fabulous compensation was granted at more than Rs. 1,60,318 which is the subject-matter of the appeal and the same is questioned as enormous and unrelated to the injury caused. It is submitted that the Tribunal is more liberal than Lord Kama to grant such a huge sum for a simple injury and no ruling is followed. The Tribunal has made no comparison. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in cases where there has been a fracture of leg even a sum of rs. 1,00,000 or more than Rs. 2,00,000 can be granted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants relied upon a dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), wherein the Apex court considering the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and also taking into consideration the prospects of the good academic career, a brilliant student of b. Com. , was granted a sum of Rs. 4,58,000 enhancing the compensation amount from rs. 4,00,000. The High Court had granted only Rs. 58,000, but the Apex Court has raised it to Rs. 4,00,000 taking into consideration that the claimant is a brilliant student. In my opinion, the facts of that case are different and that does not apply to the facts of the case on hand.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that as per Exh. P-70 wound certificate, the respondent has sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula below knee joint. The respondent claims to be a videographer and it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the question of loss of future earnings does not arise at all in this case. Though the arguments were made in respect of the other claims granted, I am satisfied that except the grant of loss of future earnings other claims are sustainable. I am supporting my view by following the decisions of various High Courts. It is found that when leg was amputated for 6 years boy, the Rajasthan High Court has granted Rs. 50,000 as against the compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 31,675, in the case of Inder Lal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Rajasthan ). In respect of amputation of one leg, for a girl of 12 years, Andhra Pradesh High court has granted Rs. 35,000 towards non pecuniary losses and Rs. 16,000 towards medical expenses and past expenses for artificial limb, in K. Sapana v. B. Appa rao, 1988 ACJ 113 (AP ). When both the legs were amputated, for a man of 22 years, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered grant of Rs. 48,000 for loss of earnings and suffering, etc. , and Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses in Kanji v. Chohal Singh, (1988) 1 TAC 375. In respect of amputation of right leg, for a student of 25 years, the Assam High Court has considered grant of Rs. 51,421 as proper and reasonable, in Assam State Road trans. Corpn. v. Halaluddin Ahmed, 1988 acj 711 (Gauhati ). In another case of the delhi High Court in respect of amputation of left leg, has awarded Rs. 40,000 as proper compensation as general damages and special damages in Inderjit v. Mehar Singh, 1988 ACJ 389 (Delhi ). The Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered amputation of right leg from thigh and awarded rs. 30,000 as compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum as reasonable in madhyia v. Ramesh Chandra, 1988 (2)TAC 89. The Kerala High Court in United india Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. . v. C. P. Varghese, 1988 ACJ 152 (Kerala), has considered Rs. 50,000 as reasonable compensation for amputation of right leg and right finger. The Rajasthan High Court in Satish Kumar v. Murlidhar Ishardas, 1985 ACJ 808 (Rajasthan), has considered rs. 16,000 as proper compensation when the cyclist, aged 35 years, got his right leg seriously injured which was shortened by 3/4" and the bone-joint did not remain in order. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lt. Col. Om Adhar v. Bhushan Kumar, 1989 ACJ 508 (Pandh), in respect of a 36 years lady for the leg shortened due to fracture, a compensation of Rs. 20,000 was held to be reasonable. Our own High court in Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. M. C. Shashidhara, 1984 ACJ 622 (Karnataka), for injury to the left leg amputated, a sum of Rs. 33,000 was granted as against the grant of Rs. 46,000 by the tribunal.