C J PAUL Vs. SYED PEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the owner with the insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 12-2-1980 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, in M.C. (M.V.C.) No. 212 of 1979 awarding compensation of Rs.3,05,924/- as compensation to the respondents especially from respondent 2-the Insurance Company.

(2.) The only point that was canvassed before us in this appeal is that the compensation awarded is out of all proportion to the nature of injuries sustained and that it does not compare well with the general run of awards made in comparable cases over some length of time. 2-A. The evidence on record discloses that the claimant sustained compound fracture of right patella and compound fracture of right femur. The fracture was reduced but it developed infection with the result that he had to continue the stay in the hospital. P. W. 3 Dr. Gyanachand of the Victoria Hospital has stated during his evidence that the patient was in the hospital from 17-1-1979 to 28-11980. His right leg had become shortened by 3 inches and his knee joint had become stiffened. He needed two more operations to improve his condition. As it was, he was not able to stand, he was not able to sit cross-legged and not able to walk fast or run. Hence, he deposed before the Tribunal that it was not possible for him to join back to his job which required several hours of standing unless he is offered an alternative suitable job. He further stated that in the condition as he was, it was not possible to have sex acts in the usual manner with his wife.

(3.) Syed Peer the victim of the accident and the claimant before the Tribunal was serving as an operator 'B' Grade in Bharat Electronics Ltd. since 3-6-1970. His salary at the time of accident was Rs. 687.20 paise. He was also getting 20 per cent bonus annually. According to him he had chances of promotion as an 'A' grade attender. He had 25 years of service left. On these averments he claimed Rs. 5,80,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, has awarded as Compensation Rs. 2,00,000/-, towards loss of salary Rs. 70,000/- towards general damages Rs. 20,000/- for loss of sex pleasure, Rs. 15,824/- towards nourishing food and medical expenses. It is these amounts that are challenged as exorbitant, before this Court in this appeal.