SAFNA Vs. RAMANKUTTY S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A six year old girl child while walking through Mannarkkad -Perinthalmanna road was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TDV 3769 which was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The lorry was owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. As a result of the accident, she suffered serious injuries like crush injury on the right leg, total loss of vascularity and extensive degloving injury on left thigh, amputation of right leg, wound on left thigh and knee and skin grafting also had to be done. She filed a claim petition through her guardian for Rs. 7,29,100/- limited to rupees Six lakhs as compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and the lorry had valid coverage of insurance by the policy issued by the third respondent. But, tribunal only awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,576/ -. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal.

(2.) Ext. A4 is the wound certificate. The details of injuries noted are :

(3.) With regard to disability compensation, the tribunal held as follows at paragraph 20 : "20. The injuries also require to be compensated. It has cast permanent disability of 70% on petitioner. However, the doctor is not examined and the disability is stated as partial permanent in nature. Taking a medicare percentage of disability at 60% a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is allowed as compensation under the head disability. The injury also requires to be compensated. Allowing a sum of Rs. 14,000/- is justified. " we are of the opinion that tribunal was not justified in a medicare assessment of permanent disability. There was amputation of right leg below knee and crush injury on the right leg. Skin grafting was done on the right leg. Even though contention of the counsel for the appellant to compensate has to be granted for 100% loss of earning power due to disability should be granted as the girl child with the disability will not be able to get any job in future and her life itself has become miserable. As found by the tribunal, she lost her prospects for married life or employment. She will be a liability to others. She has to depend on others for everything. She has to wear artificial leg and shoe. Disability certified is not disputed by the insurance company or any other respondent. Since she was only 6 year old at the time of accident, she has to change the artificial leg and shoe periodically. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no justification for awarding compensation fof loss of earning power and disability "taking" a mediocre percentage of disability at 60%" and awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/ -. She is entitled to compensation for 70% disability as certified by the doctor though it may amount to 100% loss of earning power and consequent loss of earning.