MAHADEV @ MAHADAPPA S/O. SUBHASH Vs. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 5 -01 -2009. passed by the Court of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhalki, in M.V.C. No. 5/2006. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,84,500/ - to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.05.2004, due to the negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration No. AP -13 -T -1523. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company.

(2.) THE only question that requires to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the compensation assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,84,500/ - is appropriate? It is not in dispute that the appellant had lost his right eye (loss of total vision and damage to the eye ball) in the accident in question. The appellant was aged 18 years at the time of the accident and was a student. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,84,500/ - under the following heads. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1583_TLKAR0_2011.html</FRM>

(3.) ON the facts of the case, guidance can be drawn from the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, re. determination of the loss of earning capacity. Hence, for loss of one eye, the loss of earning capacity is determined at 40% and by taking the income as Rs. 3,000/ - per month and by adopting the multiplier '18' which is appropriate to the age of the appellant, the total loss of future earnings would come to Rs. 2,59,200/ -. Rs. 35,000/ - awarded towards pain and sufferings requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. Likewise. Rs. 25,000/ - awarded towards loss of marriage prospects requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs. 25,000/ The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/ - towards loss of amenities of life which in my opinion is too low and hence it requires to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Under the other two heads, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the following: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1583_TLKAR0_2011(2).html</FRM>