Compensation must be substantiated with evidence, especially for future treatments, and duplicate claims under different heads may not be permissible.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the insurer who was the 3rd respondent in OP(MV)No.845/2012 before the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent while standing by the side of a road was hit by a car causing serious injuries. She preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and by award dated 30.07.2014, the Tribunal ordered a compensation of Rs.4,65,948/- with interest at 9%. The first contention of the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal has granted excessive amount under the head “pain and suffering” by granting Rs.50,000/-. Another contention is that amount has been granted for future treatment as Rs.20,000/-, even though the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was no evidence available on record regarding the necessity for future treatment. The third contention is that after granting compensation under the head 'disability', no further amount could have been granted for compensation for “loss of earning power” going by the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court inOriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Hariprasad reported in [ 2005 (4) KLT 977 ]. Reference is also made to the decision inT.N.Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya & Ors. reported in[ (2005) 6 SCC 236 ] to submit that the prevailing rate of interest should have been taken into account and only interest @ 7.5% ought to have been granted.

2. Heard Sri Mathew Jacob, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Jacob Mathew on behalf of the appellant and Smt. K.N.Rajani on behalf of the respondent.

3. It can be seen that the respondent had suffered fracture of the 2nd to 7th ribs on the left side, trimalleolar fracture right with ankle subluxation, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami, fracture of olecranon right elbow, 3 part fractures of proximal humerus with severe communution, acetabulum fracture right anterior column plus anterior wall, lacerated wound on the right ankle, forehead and right elbow, punctured wound at the forehead, lacerated wound on the chin, abrasion on the face and extremities. The monthly income was fixed at Rs.4,000/- for the reason that the respondent was a house wife. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, General Hospital, Ernakulam was relied on for ascertaining the permanent disability at 20%. I find that the compensation granted under the head disability is justified. The contention that loss of earning power should not have been treated as a separate head of compensation after having granted compensation under the head “disability” is justified and the award is liable to be interfered with on that count.

4. On the contention that excess amount has been granted towards “pain and suffering”, having regard to the nature of injuries and the fact that the respondent who is a home maker who had to be hospitalised from 26.1.2012 to 23.2.2012 and the fact that Rs.2,79,447.85 was spent towards medical expenses alone, I find that the amount granted by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any interference.

5. Regarding compensation for future treatment which has been granted by the Tribunal, it is correct that in para.9, the Tribunal has noted that there is no evidence to show that it is necessary for continuing treatment. However, the discharge summary would show the requirement for future treatment, after the treatment that was given to the respondent, which includes fixation of ankle, fixation of posterior malleolus with 3.5mm LCP synthes with 2 proximal and 2 distal screws, fixation of lateral malleolus with 5 hole recon locking plate (synthes) with 2 proximal and 2 distal screws and fixation of medial malleolus with 3.5m LCP (synthes) with 2 proximal and 2 distal screws. In the above circumstances, the grant of Rs.20,000/-

towards future treatment also cannot be said to be not justified. 6. As far as the contention that interest granted is on the higher side, the judgment relied on by the counsel relates to the year 2001 and it will not be fair to apply the same yardstick in