The court emphasized the need for adequate compensation reflecting the severity of injuries and losses incurred due to a road accident.

JUDGMENT

The appellant, the victim of a road accident, who suffered very grievous injuries, filed OP(MV) No.378/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (the 'Tribunal' for short), seeking a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, but which has been allowed only to the extent of Rs.1,80,800/-.

2. The appellant impugns the Award of the Tribunal on various grounds, namely, that his notional income taken as Rs.2,000/- is in error; that the percentage of disability adopted is incorrect; that the compensation granted under the head “pain and suffering” is exiguous; and that he ought to have been granted compensation for “damage to clothing” and for “extra nourishment”.

3. Sri.K.P.Suresh Kumar – learned counsel for the appellant, in addition, submitted that the compensation for “loss of income” granted by the Tribunal is inadequate because he was unable to do any work for merely six months, but that the Tribunal has only accorded four months for such purpose.

4. Smt.K.S.Santhi – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the contrary, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is without error and thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials and evidence on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, with express consent that they can be acted upon by this Court without dispute.

6. It is uncontested that the petitioner was only 22 years of age at the time when the accident took place in the year 2006. Therefore, even going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]; the nominal income permissible to the victim could have been Rs.5,500/-, but since he has claimed only Rs.3,000/-, I see no reason why that has been denied by the learned Tribunal.

7. That apart, the medical documents on record show that his disability ranges between 50% to 5% for various organs and faculties, and this is certified by the disability certificates, namely Exts.A11 to A13. The Tribunal, thereafter, adopted the figures in each of them to then arrive at a permanent disability percentage of 28%, without citing any reason.

8. Going by the uncontroverted medical evidence, it is also without dispute that the appellant suffered from very grievous injuries, including a severe head injury, leading to facial palsy, visual disturbance, and CSF Rhinorrhoea. Ext.A7 also shows that he has total deafness in the left ear and disfiguration on account of facial palsy.

9. Going by the trauma suffered by the petitioner and the grievous nature of the injuries, I am certain that the percentile for whole body disability adopted by the Tribunal was not correct; and, even by a conservative estimate, it can be treated as 40%.

10. Similarly, in the case of compensation for “pain and suffering”, taking note of the injuries suffered, I am certain that the Tribunal ought to have granted the appellant what has been prayed for, namely, Rs.50,000/-; and taking the monthly income to be Rs.3,000/- per month, the “loss of income” also, in my view deserves to be revised for six months, since the treatment record shows that the petitioner had to undergo continuous treatment for a long period of time.

11. Added to this, the appellant certainly is entitled to a minimum of Rs.1,500/- towards “damage to clothing” and Rs.5,000/- towards “extra nourishment” as claimed, and to an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- towards “loss of amenities”, taking note of the fact that he has suffered from facial disfiguration and palsy.

In such circumstances, the compensation eligible to the appellant is revised to be Rs.3,63,700/-, instead of Rs.1,80,800/- as ordered by the Tribunal, and he will be eligible to recover the same from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of fili