The court's decision emphasized the consideration of permanent disability, impact on earning capacity, and various treatment and recovery expenses in enhancing the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 30.06.2016 in M.C.O.P.No.3267 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.)

1. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the learned IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, the claimant is before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident had taken place on 10.04.2013 at about 15.15 hours. The appellant was working as a Checker in M/s.Sri Venkateswara Export Garments and earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- . At the time of the accident, she was aged about 45 years. She suffered the following injuries:

“(i) Severe head injury – right post temporal contusion brain

(ii) Disc – Lt. Hemiparesis, diffuse edema in the brain

(iii) fracture of Ulnar styloid Pr.

(iv) Laceration in the liver”

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that she has been assessed a disability at 55%. The grievance of the appellant is that without taking into consideration the fact that the disability is a permanent one, the Tribunal has only calculated the compensation on the percentage basis by adopting Rs.3,000/- per percentage. This according to the learned counsel has to be enhanced. That apart, the appellant was taking treatment as an inpatient for 11 days and a sum of Rs.7,000/- each alone has been awarded towards extra nourishment and transport charges. The amount under the head of loss of amenities is also on the lower side as also the compensation towards attendant charges. Therefore, he would seek to have the compensation to be enhanced.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal has considered the nature of the injuries, its impact on the earning capacity while awarding compensation. That apart, the petitioner was taking treatment in the Christian Medical College at Vellore. Despite which she has got the pharmacy and inpatient bills of Scudder Memorial Hospital, Ranipet, which have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal and which has raised a doubt about the treatment undergone by the petitioner. He would therefore submit that the Award may be confirmed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the papers.

6. The accident is of the year 2013. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/Transport corporation, there is no evidence on the side of the petitioner to show that she has sustained a loss of earning capacity or that her movement have been restricted. Therefore, the adoption of percentage method appears to be in order. However, taking into account the age and the year of the accident, a sum of Rs.4,000/- per percentage can be granted and therefore, the amount under the head of disability is enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (55 x Rs.4,000).

7. The petitioner has been an inpatient for over 11 days. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- and 10,000/- can be granted under the head of extra nourishment and transportation charges. A very meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded under the head of attendant charges and taking into account the fact that she was inpatient for over 11 days, the attendant charges is enhanced to a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Only a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been granted under the head of loss of amenities which can be enhanced to a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, taking into consideration the above aspects, the modified amount is as follows: