The severity of injuries and medical evidence play a crucial role in determining the adequacy of compensation for personal injury.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimant, being dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.2,15,000/-, is in appeal.

2. The factum of the accident is not in dispute. Similarly, the liability of the Insurance Company is also not in dispute.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sums are awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities are inadequate. He also submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in not awarding any sums towards loss of future earning capacity , eventhough, the Doctor had opined that the claimant had suffered 31% permanent disability to the right lower limb and 15.5% to the whole body. He further submitted that the claimant, subsequent to the accident, was walking with the limp and therefore, his ability to discharge work as before was diminished to a very large extent.

4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that having regard to the totality of this circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- and there was no justification for enhancing the same.

5. The medical evidence adduced indicates that the claimant had suffered transverse fracture shaft of right femur. The said injury is grievous in nature and the claimant was also subjected to surgery. The medical evidence also indicates that the claimant cannot run, walk briskly or stand for long time. It is also stated that he can not bend both legs and cannot sit on the floor. Ultimately, the Doctor i.e. PW.4 has assessed that the permanent disability to the right lower limb is at 31% and 15.5% to the whole body.

6. In my view, for such a grievous injury which has resulted in 31% permanent disability to the right lower limb and 15.5% to the whole body, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The claimant has not produced any positive evidence to indicate his monthly income though he claimed that he his earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence, it would be prudent to adopt the income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority which has been framed for the purpose of disposal of cases during the Lok Adalat. The monthly income determined therein for an accident of the year 2010 is Rs.5,500/-. Since the year of the accident is 2010, taking the disability at 15% and adopting the multiplier of 17 , the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,68,300/- (Rs.5,500/- x 12 x 17 x 15/100) towards loss of future earning capacity.

7. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, the compensation towards pain and suffering is also required to be enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/-.

8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and future happiness . In my view, having regard to the fact that the claimant is limping after the accident, the same is required to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/-

9. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period . Having regard to the nature of injuries and the length of stay in the Hospital, in my view, the claimant is entitled for loss of income during the treatment period of 2 months, which would be 11,000/-.

10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses , a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards Conveyance, nourishment, etc., and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses . These sums are just and proper and are therefore affirmed.

11. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled for the following: