M.THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. P.T.S.M.DHASTHAGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accident, which occurred on 12.04.2005, an interior decorator, aged about 22 years and stated to have earned Rs.3,000/- and sustained a Grade III Compound Fracture of both bones in the left leg and other injuries, claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. He was a pillion rider, in a motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN 09 AF 8430, which was driven by one Prakash Pandian. In the accident, both the rider and pillion rider sustained injuries. They made separate claim petitions. As both the claim petitions arose out of the same accident, a joint trial has been held. Though the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, disputed the manner of accident and its liability, the Claims Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, fixed negligence on the driver of the Mahendra Van, bearing Registration No.TN 10 C 9559, in causing the accident and accordingly, awarded compensation in the claim petitions.

(2.) Insofar as the appellant-pillion rider is concerned, the Claims Tribunal, upon perusal of Exs.P2 and P3 Discharge Summaries and Ex.P12 Disability Certificate, found that the appellant has sustained a Grade III Compound Fracture in both bones left leg. Having regard to the avocation as an interior decorator, fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. PW.2, Doctor, who clinically examined the appellant/claimant, with reference to Ex.P13 X-Ray, assessed the disability at 40% and issued Ex.P12 Disability Certificate. He was hospitalised for 11 days. However, taking into consideration the period of time, between the accident and date on which, the disability certificate has been issued, ie., after three years, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the extent of disablement assessed by PW.3, Doctor, was excessive and therefore, reduced the same to 32%. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of 1,19,370/- under the following heads, <FRM>JUDGEMENT_491_TLMAD0_2013_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Contending inter alia that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, the injured has preferred this appeal.