P MURUGAIYAN Vs. K RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a road traffic accident, which took place on 12.4.96 by collision between two vehicles, a 46 years old gentleman, who is a Headmaster by profession in a Government School, suffered serious injuries by way of fracture of shaft of femur of both legs, head injury, etc., resulting in 140 per cent disability (70 per cent orthopaedic, 40 per cent neuro and 30 per cent dental), giving rise to a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras as M.C.O.P. No. 1781 of 1997, in which an award has been passed for a sum of Rs. 5,58,000 with interest as against the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 claimed by the injured. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the injured has filed an appeal before this court in C.M.A. No. 390 of 2001, which was dismissed by the judgment impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel and considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation already awarded is inadequate. It is in evidence that the insured has suffered 140 per cent disability (orthopaedic, neuro and dental) as a result of injuries. We take note of the fact that fracture of shaft of femur is a serious injury, which will effect the earning capacity of the injured. It is in evidence that on account of the injuries, the appellant has difficulty in walking, squatting, etc. The appellant underwent surgery and ORIF (plate osteosynthesis right femur) was done on 3.5.1996 and ORIF (plate osteosynthesis left femur) was done on 15.5.1996. Since he had developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, a tracheostomy was done and he was put on a venti- lator to save his life. It is also in evidence that there was shifting of dental alignment and that as a result of the head injury, the appellant suffered hoarseness of voice. In addition he has suffered broken teeth, difficulty in swallowing, etc. The medical evidence shows that the appellant has suffered slight tremor and there may be difficulty in turning the neck and besides some disfiguring marks on the face. The aforesaid facts are proved by examining three doctors, viz., PWs 2 to 4.

(3.) It is not disputed that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 8,650 per month. Applying the multiplier of 10 and reckoning 140 per cent as the permanent disability, we are re-calculating the compensation of permanent disability as Rs. 13,44,000. Since the claimant has restricted his claim only to a sum of Rs. 2,57,000 under this head, we limit the claim to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,57,000, in lieu of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal and the learned single Judge.