B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE award of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy district in O. P. No. 276/83 dated 4-7-1987 is in challenge wherein Rs. 500/- has been awarded by way of compensation for the three simple injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant due to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3-6-1983 at about 4-30 p. m. near Kodanpalli due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st Respondent. The lorry belongs to the 2nd Respondent and insured with the 3rd Respondent. The tribunal has found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st Respondent. Putting the fixed liability on the 2nd Respondent and the liability due to indemnity on the part of the 3rd Respondent, the award was passed.

( 2 ) MR. Raja Sripathi Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the testimony of the claimant herself about her inability to work for atleast six months having due regard to the certain injuries could not have been actually noticed by the Doctor and even from the evidence on record, the Tribunal was wrong in awarding such a small amount of Rs. 500/- by way of compensation. It is his contention that even when a person suffers minor injuries or simple injuries, the after effects of the accident like shock, pain and loss of amenities of life in addition to loss of income cannot be ignored.

( 3 ) THE injuries suffered by the claimant are noted in Para 7 of the Judgment with the evidence of the Doctor as follows:"dr. T. S. Murthy, who was examined on Commission shows that this particular injured Savaramma was examined by him on 3-6-1983 at about 5. 30 p. m. and he found. 0 a lacerated wound of 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the outer angle of the left eye. ii) an abrasion of the size of 1/2" x 1/2" over the medial side of the left elbow. iii) an abrasion of the size of 1/2" x 1/2" on the outer side of the left fore arm. and the Doctor certified that all the injuries are simple. "no reasons are given as how Rs. 500/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration and proper assessment of the compensation.

( 4 ) EVERY accident follows shock, pain and discomfort and depression the part of the victim. The question is not whether he/she suffers major or minor injuries. Even in case of minor injuries the amount of compensation for shock and pain cannot be less than rs. 1,000/. Because even pain being the negative experience of the brain is classified to be an injury. Obviously shock and pain due to an accident would be an injury to the mental experience. The medical evidence does not indicate any disability suffered by the appellant. Inevitably the inference is that she was fully cured of such injuries. In the nature of the injuries supra, it ought to have been cured normally within 3-4 weeks or maximum six weeks. In other words, the claimant must have suffered pain, discomfort and consequences of such injuries for such a period. It is also possible that during that period she was prevented from working either by her own psychological set up or by certain consequences. Even among the minor injuries or simple injuries, comparison of minor of the minor, minormost of the minor will be there. In the present case, only the first injury being a laceration on the left eye should be a serious one when compared to simple injuries on the left elbow and the left fore arm. Even a scratch on the eye lid or the eye is sufficient to disable the performance of its usual normal functions. The eye being a sensitive organ of the body, there will be a lot of pain and discomfort on the part of the victim. Normally per simple of the simple injuries, Rs. 500/- per injury should be awarded. If such a minor injury is little serious as distinguished above, it will be escalated to Rs. 1,000/- per injury. When there is composite injury or bundle of such injuries fixed sum of compensation between Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- may be awarded. If any aut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document