LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-105

P. MAHENDRAN Vs. V. SHANTHI

Decided On February 24, 2017
P. MAHENDRAN Appellant
V/S
V. SHANTHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Claimant, who was working as a cleaner in a Eicher Mini Lorry, having suffered injury in an accident that took place on 22.05.2003, has come forward with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Initially, he has made a claim for Rs. 8,00,000.00 before the Tribunal but was awarded Rs. 2,25,000.00 with interest at 7.5% p.a. Now, before this Court, the appellant has filed C.M.P. No. 17237 of 2016, seeking an enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,25,000.00.

(2.) The appellant has suffered crush injury to his left arm when the mini lorry in which he was travelling as its cleaner capsized, which ultimately ended in amputation of the injured arm. He was hospitalized twice between 22.05.2003 and 24.05.2003 and 24.05.2003 and 02.06.2003. The appellant was 31 years at the relevant time and claimed that his monthly income including his daily batta was Rs. 5,000.00. The Tribunal, while passing its award for Rs. 2,25,000.00, has accepted the medical evidence determining the permanent disability of the appellant at 70% and awarded Rs. 1,05,000.00 [calculated at Rs. 1500 per percentage of disability]. On the head of loss of income, it has fixed monthly income at Rs. 4000.00 and awarded compensation of Rs. 24,000.00. On the head of medical expenses, the appellant had produced Ext.P-3, which arithmetically would come to Rs. 71,197.50.00, but the Tribunal had calculated it at Rs. 56,000.00.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the nature of the injury suffered by the appellant and the amputation that he had undergone to his left hand, has literally disabled him functionally and the same should be reckoned at 100% loss of earning power. He also submitted that his monthly income should be fixed at Rs. 5,000.00, the prospect of earning future enhancement of income should be reckoned at 50% and accordingly, his monthly income should be determined at Rs. 7,500.00 and since he was aged 31 years at the relevant time, the multiplier of 16 to be applied. He also sought compensation under various other heads.