LAWS(KER)-2011-9-45

NISSAM K S Vs. PREMJI JOY

Decided On September 07, 2011
NISSAM K.S. Appellant
V/S
PREMJI JOY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a claim for compensation for loss of earnings and reduction in earning capacity consequent to physical disability, is the Tribunal justified in deducting from the monthly earnings any portion as personal expenses of the victim This question is raised in this appeal.

(2.) The claimant/injured is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 6th September, 2006. He was working as a Meter Reader when he suffered the injuries. While undergoing treatment, he was promoted as a Sub Engineer under the Kerala State Electricity Board. He had suffered multiple injuries including multiple fractures. Fracture of the right temporal bone with extradural haematoma and subarachnoid haemorrhage is the main injury. There was fracture of the neck of left femur. There was fracture of ribs 3 to 9 on the left side. There was fracture of scapula also. He had to, undergo treatment as an inpatient for 41 days in two spells. He allegedly suffered permanent disability, which was quantified and assessed as 11% in Ext. A10 disability certificate. The Tribunal, against a total claim of Rs. 8,33,000, awarded an amount of Rs. 4,15,339 as per the details given in para 9, which we extract below: <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:"> <tr> <td> <div align="center">Sl.</div></td> <td> <div align="center">Heads of award</div></td> <td><div align="center">Amount Rs.</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">1</div></td> <td> <div align="center">Medical expenses</div></td> <td> <div align="center">2,04,100</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">2</div></td> <td><div align="center">Loss of earnings (1,92,929 x 2/3)</div></td> <td> <div align="center">1,28,619</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">3</div></td> <td><div align="center">Bystander expenses</div></td> <td> <div align="center">10,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">4</div></td> <td><div align="center">Extra Nourishment</div></td> <td><div align="center">1,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">5</div></td> <td><div align="center">Damages to clothing</div></td> <td><div align="center">500</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">6</div></td> <td><div align="center">Transport to hospital</div></td> <td><div align="center">20,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">7</div></td> <td><div align="center">Pain and suffering</div></td> <td> <div align="center">20,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">8</div></td> <td><div align="center">Permanent partial disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (1,000 x 12 x 8 2/3 x 8)</div></td> <td> <div align="center">21,120</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">9</div></td> <td><div align="center">Loss of amenities</div></td> <td> <div align="center">10,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center"></div></td> <td><div align="center">Total :</div></td> <td> <div align="center">4,15,339</div></td> </tr> </table>

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded.