The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for just and reasonable compensation, co-relation of injury to the avocation of the injured, and consistency and uniformity in assessing disability.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18 lakhs for fracture of Tibia (CMA No.3584 of 2004) and Rs.3,40,000/- for fracture of the left toe (CMA No.534 of 2005) respectively. According to the appellant Insurance Company, the awards are unreasonable and excessive.

C.M.A.No.3584 of 2004

2. When the claimant was going as a pillion-rider on the motor-cycle driven by his brother, an auto-rickshaw dashed against him and he sustained injuries. He made a claim of Rs.46 lakhs as compensation against the owner of the insurer of the Autorickshaw. The Tribunal awarded, as stated earlier, Rs.18 lakhs as compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision of this Court in 2005(3) TLNJ (Civil) 580 (M.S.LUTHUFULLAH AND ANOTHER v. S.BALU) would squarely apply to this case, where the Division Bench set aside the award of Rs.9,19,000 for a fractured clavicle disapproving the approach. The Division Bench observed that this kind of approach is not a juridical approach and it can only be deprecated.

4. In the present case, the injured was a third year B.E. Civil Engineering Student. The Tribunal observed that a Civil Engineer will easily receive a salary of Rs.10,000/-per month in any ordinary Private Company or in the Government and because of the accident, the claimant was working as a Clerk in the lathe work shop of his sister and therefore fixed the loss of earning capacity at 50% and adopting the multiplier of 18, the loss of earning capacity was quantified at Rs.11 lakhs. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for transportation, Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.1 lakh for loss of income for family members, additional transportation and medical expenses.

5. P.W.4 - Dr. R. Thiagarajan in his evidence has stated that there is malunion in the fractured tibia and therefore there may be restriction in his bending and straightening the leg and certified the disability at 60%. The claimant was an inpatient from 10. 2000 to 110. 2000 (i.e.) ten days and he has also undergone surgery. Ex.P.9 is the evidence for the medical expenses and on the basis of this, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was awarded. In addition to this, the Tribunal decided to award Rs.3 lakhs for incapacity of the claimant to reach a good position in society and according to the Tribunal, the injured had spent one year continuously in treatment for which the Tribunal decided to award Rs.1 lakh. In all, a total compensation of Rs.18 lakhs was awarded.

6. We are astonished by the award. The Law relating to accident claims requires the court to award compensation which is just and reasonable and it is better for the Claims Tribunal to bear this in mind. They should neither be niggardly while awarding compensation to somebody, who is totally paralysed and who comes to court claiming that because of this accident he is reduced to living death position. At the same time, the accidents claim petition is not an occasion for bonanza for persons, who have sustained fractures. The injury sustained must always be co-related to the avocation of the injured to assess the degree of disability or loss of earning capacity as the case may be. We may usefully refer to R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : (1995 AIR SCW 243: AIR 1995 SC 755), where the Supreme Court had held as follows:

"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of tria