The case clarified that compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities must be justly evaluated and should not solely hinge on earning capacity assessments.

The claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, in OP(MV) No.264/2013 is the appellant herein. He sustained serious injuries in an accident which occurred on 02.02.2013, when his motor cycle collided with a car. He assails the Award dated 25.10.2016, essentially on the inadequacy of the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

2. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel for the

3rd respondent Insurance Company.

3. Perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/injured, aged 29 years, was employed in Apollo tyres when the accident took place. Both bones of his right leg were fractured. A disability certificate was issued vide Ext.A8, certifying 10.62% disability. However, the same was reduced by the Tribunal to 6%, merely stating that the disability fixed by the doctor is on the higher side, which course is not open to the Tribunal according to the learned Counsel. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel is that as per Ext.A12 salary certificate, the loss of salary sustained by the injured, pursuant to the accident, is Rs.99,043/-. However, the Tribunal has reckoned Rs.85,491/- only, reducing certain allowance component etc, which course is also not legal. Finally, the learned counsel contended that the amount granted under the heads – ‘pain and sufferings’ – ‘loss of amenities’ are on the lower side.

5. Per contra, these submissions were refuted by the learned senior counsel for the insurance company. Senior counsel submitted that the disability of 10.62% has not affected the earning capacity of the injured, as can be seen from Ext.A10 certificate, which says that the injured is fit to rejoin service. Therefore, his earnings are not affected and hence no compensation is liable to be given on that count. It was also pointed out that Ext.A8 disability certificate also speaks of the bones having been united fully, wherefore, the disability assessed at 10.62% has no legal basis.

6. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court will address the issues one by one. This court is of the definite opinion that the disability certified in Ext.A8 at 10.62% is not liable to be interfered with by the Tribunal, especially when no tangible reason has been stated for doing so. Assessing disability is the job of an expert, which has been done by a specialized doctor, who represents the Government service. Except for weighty and lofty reasons, a court of law should not interfere with such assessment. Therefore, the disability certified vide Ext.A8 has to be reckoned for the purpose of compensation.

7. The next aspect is with respect to loss of salary certified vide Ext.A12. It goes without saying that if the injured had not met with an accident and had attended duties, he would have fetched any amount of Rs.99,043.45/- and that the loss entailed is the direct consequence of the accident, where he was seriously injured and constrained to be on rest for a period of four months. Therefore, reducing certain amounts, from the emoluments, treating the same as allowance etc is not justified. This court therefore directs that the amount of Rs.99,043/- as stated in Ext.A12 is liable to be reckoned.

8. Regarding ‘pain and suffering’, what has been granted by the Tribunal is Rs.25,000/-. This court takes note of the fact that the appellant/petitioner has suffered both bone fracture on his right leg. He was treated as an in-patient for a period of 7 days and was also advised rest for a period of four moths. In such circumstances, a nominal increase under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ would serve the interests of justice.

Accordingly the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.

8. The head ‘loss of amenities’ in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case assumes importance. As contended for by the learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company, the petitioner/appellant had not suffered any serious loss on accoun