Court held that compensation for personal injuries must adequately reflect the severity of injuries and their impact on the victim's quality of life.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.269 of

2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 28.05.2012, while he was working as conductor in the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15- 9046 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the bus hit against a stonewall, whereby he sustained serious injuries.

He approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement, admitting the accident, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹94,340/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for almost six months, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of three months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings and awarded only ₹39,240/-, which is on the lower side. At the time of the accident, the appellant was working in the KSRTC as conductor. However, no document has been produced by the appellant to prove loss of earnings. It is seen that the appellant sustained a blow out fracture (R) orbit, fracture (R) zygomatic arch, Ant. medial & PL wall of B/L, Max. sinus with radial and lateral walls of (R) Orbit fracture, fracture (R) Lefort III and (L) Lefort II redn. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that four months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹52,320/- (13080 x 4) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹13,080/- towards loss of earnings.

5.2. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹45,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹25,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.3. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹30,000/- towards loss o