KUMARI BABY ALIAS LATHIKA Vs. C.C. APPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT in a proceeding under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act is the appellant. She was injured in a bus accident on 16.12.1980 at 6.15 p.m. She was a college student aged 17 years on the date of the accident and was returning from college in a bus KLH 2016 owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent. On the way the bus hit a standing tree and due to the impact of the accident the claimant suffered a compound fracture on her left tibia and a crush injury on her left palm besides a compound fracture on the left leg and injuries on the head and other pails of the body. She was immediately admitted to the District Hospital, Palghat, from where she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and she was discharged only on 24.2.1981. Thereafter also she was occasionally visiting the hospitals for further treatment. It is also averred that there was disfigurement of her hand and leg for which she had to undergo plastic surgery. On these allegations she claimed Rs. 1,50,000/ - as compensation made up of Rs. 500/ - for transport charges, Rs. 5,000/ - for medical expenses and extra nourishment, Rs. 50,000/ - for pain and suffering, Rs. 75,000/ - for permanent disability and Rs. 19,500/ - towards loss of earning power.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 though denied their liability, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent, insurance company, contended that the insurance cover is only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/ - as the claimant was the passenger in a bus.

(3.) THE . appeal being by the claimant alone, in this appeal we are concerned only with the question as to whether the compensation awarded is reasonable in the circumstances of the case and in the nature of the injuries and disablement occurred to the claimant. It has come out in evidence that due to the accident the claimant suffered a compound fracture on her left tibia, a crush injury on the left palm and also a compound fracture on the left leg. It is also clearly proved that she was in the hospital for more than two months, first in the District Hospital, Palghat and thereafter in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. It is also proved that the petitioner had also to undergo plastic surgery to remove certain scars and incise wounds on her body. Due to the impact of the accident, the shape of her leg has also changed. PW 1 is the claimant and she has given evidence that she was a college student and that the accident happened while she was returning from the college. It is also spoken to by her that consequent to the accident she is not in a position to walk properly and that she is not in a position to lift much weight. She has also spoken that even the shape of her leg has changed and that she had to undergo plastic surgery. Consequent to the accident she had stopped her studies. The evidence given by PW 1 stands uncontroverted as there was no effective cross -examination on these points. PW 4 is the doctor who has also certified that the impact of the accident is as spoken to by PW 1 and that whatever treatment the claimant takes, there will be a permanent disablement to her hand and leg. It is also to be remembered that the appellant -claimant was a girl aged 17 at the time of the accident. Due to the accident her prospects of married life have become bleak, her chances of further studies affected and her future also will be miserable. Taking into account all these circumstances, the compensation has to be fixed in the case. So far as transport charges and medical expenses are concerned, we feel that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation. But in regard to the claim for pain and suffering as also for permanent disability, only an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - and Rs. 12,000/ - has been awarded by the Tribunal as against the claim of Rs. 50,000/ -and Rs. 75,000/ - made by the appellant -claimant. We have already indicated the nature of the injuries and the disabilities which the claimant has to undergo for the rest of her life. We have also taken note of the fact that she was a girl aged 17 years at that time and by the accident the prospects of her getting a good marriage alliance are also doubtful. In these circumstances, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under these two heads, i.e., Rs. 17,000/ -, is too low. A reasonable compensation on this account would be Rs. 50,000/ - and we accordingly modify the award of the Tribunal to that extent. Though counsel for the appellant -claimant submitted that the compensation towards loss of earning power is low, we feel that the above claim would also be included in part in the previous claim for permanent disability, for which we have already made an increase from what the Tribunal has awarded. On the whole we hold that the petitioner is entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 33,000/ -. In other words, the appellant -claimant will be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 58,000/ - as compensation.