The court affirmed the necessity of just compensation reflecting the actual impact of injuries on a claimant's life, modifying awards for future treatment and suffering accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.SUDHA, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) by the claimant/petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.955/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 12/03/2019. The sole respondent herein is the second respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claimant/petitioner, on 14/06/2015 at 02:45 p.m., she was travelling as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-43/C-3945 through Ernakulam-Thoppumpady road. While so a lorry bearing registration no.KL-01/BL-902 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the motorcycle as a result of which she was thrown on to the road whereby she sustained grievous injuries. Hence the petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

3. The 2^nd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent. In fact, negligence was on the side of the rider of the motor cycle. The age, job, income, nature of injuries and amount claimed under various heads were disputed.

4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the claimant/petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents. Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibit.

5. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.2,93,106/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioner/claimant has come up in appeal.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

7. Heard both sides

8. The Award of compensation under the following heads are challenged by the claimant/petitioner -

Extra Nourishment

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the claimant had been hospitalised for 14 days and therefore, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded is on the lower side. Taking into account the fact that the hospitalisation was for a period of about 14 days, I find that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment.

Pain and suffering.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that in the light of the injuries sustained, an amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed. However, the amount of Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal is quite low and therefore, it may be increased to Rs.75,000/-.

Going by Ext.A1 wound certificate, the following are the injuries -

“1. Lacerated wound on the left ear.

2. Crush injury to the right hand:LW 7 cms x 5 cm, right forearm degloving injury with both bone fracture, friction abrasions distal forearm and hand.

3. Abrasion on right knee.

4. Fracture of distal radius.

5. Fracture of ulna.”

In the light of the injuries sustained, I find that an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering would be just compensation.

Future treatment expenses.

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that though an amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed towards future treatment expenses, no amount has been granted, which is a g