GEORGE Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured in a motor accident is the appellant herein. He field O.P.(MV) No.2229/01 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming compensation from the respondents herein for the injuries and consequent disability sustained by the appellant on account of negligent driving of the vehicle owned, driven and insured by the respondents. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred only) under various heads as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_575_KERLT1_2013html1.htm</FRM> The appellant submits that considering the injuries and consequent permanent disability sustained by the appellant, the compensation awarded is palpably inadequate. He points out that he suffered the following injuries, as narrated in the Judgment itself.

(2.) WE have considered the contentions of the parties in detail. It is true that in Suresh's case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that compensation has to be awarded under both heads namely permanent disability as well as loss of earning power in motor accident claims involving permanent disability. But normally, the Tribunals award compensation for disability under two heads viz; either for disability or for loss of earning power and for loss of amenities. Going by the reasoning in the Judgment of the Supreme Court, what is contemplated is compensation for loss of earning power and compensation for disability which is the same as compensation for loss of amenities. There are two consequences for permanent disability. That is, reduction in the earning power of the injured and the reduction in his physical capacity to go about his daily routine which every human being has to do every day personally in the course of his day to day activities. The loss of earning power is essentially connected to the impact of the disability on the avocation which the injured is engaged in, and therefore compensation thereof has to be assessed taking into account such impact and not merely on the basis of the % of physical disability assessed medically, unless such assessment is with reference to the impact of the disability on his capacity to continue his avocation as before. Compensation for the physical disability has to be assessed based on the adverse impact the disability has on his ability to do his daily routine, which he has to basically do as other human beings do. This is also termed as loss of ability to enjoy the amenities of life. Therefore, although often people refer to three heads for assessing compensation on account of permanent disability as, (1) compensation for physical disability, (2) compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and compensation for loss of earning power, (1) and (2) essentially comes under the same head and therefore compensation on account of physical disability caused by the accident has to be assessed only under two heads, viz; (1) for physical disability or loss of amenities of life and (2) loss of earning power. In this case, compensation has been awarded to the appellant under two heads, viz; disability and loss of amenities. Therefore, although the Tribunal has stated that the appellant is not entitled to get any amount by way of compensation for loss of earning power, because he was given compensation for disability, we are of opinion that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is compensation for loss of earning capacity and disability/loss of amenities. As such, we do not think that the appellant is entitled to compensation because of the permanent disability suffered by him under a third head.

(3.) WE are also of further opinion that considering the injuries and consequent disability suffered by the appellant, the compensation awarded for loss of amenities in life is too low. We are inclined to award Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) more under this head.