SHIBINA RANI Vs. RADHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant a school going student sustained lacerated wound 4 X 3 X 2 cm. on the left elbow, lacerated wound 2 X 1 X 1 cm. in the right eyebrow, lacerated wound 6 X 2 cm. on the right knee, lacerated wound 3 X 3 cm. below left knee and lacerated wound 2 X 1 cm. below left ankle and fracture of first MT base and fracture of medial cuneiform in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw in which she was travelling as passenger. The appellant complains that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award her adequate compensation for injuries sustained by her. She claimed a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - as compensation and under various heads the Tribunal awarded her only Rs.56,400/ -, which according to the appellant is grossly inadequate. We have heard the submissions of Sri. J.S. Ajith Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and those of the learned standing counsel for the contesting Insurance Company. The argument of Sri. Ajith Kumar was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the MACT under almost all heads. Whereas the submission of the learned standing counsel was that there is no such inadequacy and that there is no justification for increasing the compensation.

(2.) HAVING anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully read through the impugned award we are of the view that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Having seen the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant we are of the view that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities. We award to the appellant Rs.1400/ - more towards loss of amenities. The doctor who treated the appellant certified that the appellant had suffered a permanent partial disability of 11% on account of the injuries. The learned Tribunal who had occasion to see the appellant wound find that the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant is only 8%. The learned Tribunal calculated disability compensation adopting a notional income of Rs.2000/ -. While we are approving the action of the learned Tribunal in having assumed that the percentage of disability suffered is only 8% we are of the view that the learned Tribunal should have taken Rs.2500/ - as the monthly income of the appellant. When disability compensation is recalculated on the basis of the revised monthly income it will be seen that the appellant becomes eligible for a further amount of Rs.7200/ - which we award to the appellant. We find inadequacy in the amount awarded to the appellant towards pain and suffering. We award to the appellant Rs.1400/ - more towards pain and suffering. Thus in all the appellant is awarded Rs.10,000/ - more than what is awarded by the Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the same rate as specified in the impugned award.