NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. K GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurance company, which had suffered an award at the hands of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal for a sum of Rs. 3,65,000 (for the injuries sustained), is before this court challenging the said award only on the question of quantum of compensation awarded. In the above context, we perused the judgment under challenge. The injured/respondent no. 1 claimed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 as the total compensation. His case is that he was earning a sum of Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 10,000 per month by supplying building materials. PW 3 is the doctor, who examined the injured. PW 1 in his evidence would state that he had suffered a skull injury and injury on hands and legs as well. He would state that he was initially admitted in a private hospital called Sridevi Hospital and when the hospital authorities expressed their difficulties to treat the injured, he was admitted in the Government General hospital, Chennai as an inpatient from 25. 10. 2000 till 14. 11. 2000. Exh. PI is the discharge certificate issued by the Government General Hospital. It is his further evidence that thereafter he was taking treatment as an outpatient for a period of four months. To prove this, he has filed exh. P2 note book. Exh. P3 is the certificate given by another private hospital, which had certified that in that hospital the injured was taking treatment as an outpatient. As already stated, PW 3 is a doctor who examined the injured. His evidence shows that the injured had suffered an injury in the brain leading to a blood clot and the said clot was removed after surgery. Around the brain, bones have been removed to the extent of 4. 3" and to that extent the brain remains exposed to the other portions of the skull. Exh. P7 is the disability certificate given by him.

(2.) THE Tribunal on going through the entire evidence; going by the period during which the injured was taking treatment and fixing his monthly income anywhere between Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 10,000 awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards loss of earnings during the time of his treatment. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was awarded towards expenses incurred by him for travelling to the hospital. A further sum of Rs. 3,000 was awarded towards expenses incurred by him for buying nutritious food and damage to his personal property was quantified at Rs. 1,000. Towards hospital expenses, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 17,000. The Tribunal finding that they are not supported by any bills and still going by the broad probabilities of the treatment which the injured might have received, awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000 for medical expenses. In our considered opinion, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, the treatment he would have received for that and the treatment he was taking as an outpatient in a private hospital, it cannot be said that the sum of Rs. 14,000 awarded for hospital expenses is excessive. The pain, suffering and mental agony which the family members of the claimant would have suffered during the time when the injured had suffered injury and was taking treatment is quantified at Rs. 10,000 as against the claim of Rs. 30,000. There was a claim of Rs. 50,000 towards additional transport expenses. Having regard to the long duration of the treatment as an outpatient, the Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 10,000 for that. As against the claim of the injured for mental agony, which he quantified at Rs. 1,00,000, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 50,000 under that head. It may be noticed here that the Claims tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 for the suffering of the family members on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Holding that the said award is not permissible in law and having regard to the grievous injury which the injured had suffered and the duration of the treatment during which he would have definitely had considerable pain and suffering, we are inclined to award a further sum of rs. 10,000 to the claim made by claimant for mental agony instead of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the family members as referred to above under that head. Thus a sum of Rs. 50,000 awarded by the Tribunal for mental agony of the injured is raised to Rs. 60,000 by setting off a sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the family members under that head. Towards pain and suffering which the injured would have suffered at the time when he was taking treatment, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 and looking from broad probabilities of the case, we do not find that the said award is excessive. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards permanent disability. PW 3's evidence is that on surgery performed on his brain, blood clot was removed and as a result of the injury to the brain, bones surrounding the brain had also been removed. The injured is suffering from headaches, giddiness and his facial skin and his left hand skin had suffered considerable damage. The doctor had also given evidence that as a result of the injuries suffered, the claimant stands exposed to forgetfulness. The doctor's evidence is that often the injured claimant gets fits and he fixed the permanent disability at 55 per cent. Exh. P7 is the disability certificate. From the evidence of PW 3 it is seen that the injured has suffered considerable disability and therefore we are inclined to accept the evidence of PW 3 on the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. The Tribunal under this head awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. Lastly, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards reduction in his capacity to earn in future. Having regard to the fact that the injured was 50 years old and the income which he was earning in supplying building materials, we do not find that the award of Rs. 1,00,000 under this head is excessive. Thus the sum of rs. 3,65,000 awarded by the Tribunal on the facts of this case appears to be a reasonable and just compensation awarded to the injured. Therefore finding no ground to interfere, the award is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.