Compensation for personal injury claims must be based on credible evidence of disability and incurred medical expenses, necessitating fair adjustment by the tribunal.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) 2285/94. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident as a result of which he had a comminuted fracture of the right femur, loss of four teeth and other lacerated injuries. He was treated in the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly, as inpatient for 26 days and later in the Medical Centre, Ernakulam, for 6 days. The claimant produced a photocopy of the disability certificate to show that he had sustained 45% disability for the comminuted fracture. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.67,500/-. Aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal.

2. The two points seriously canvased before me are regarding (i) non providing of compensation for permanent disability adequately and (ii) dis-allowance of the entire medical expenses in spite of the fact that documents were there to that effect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant made available before me a photocopy of the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the General Hospital, Ernakulam for perusal, which fixed the disability at 45%. The reasoning are post traumatic stiffness of knee and other things with MFA No. 1098/01 2 shortening of leg. The Tribunal elaborately considered the same and found that even for amputation the schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act prescribes a disability of 30%. But the Tribunal rejected the disability certificate in toto and awarded a global sum of Rs.10,000/-

under that head.

4. I feel, the said approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. A young man who had sustained a comminuted fracture which has resulted in stiffness on the knee coupled with shortening of the leg will certainly effect his avocation and therefore, I think a minimum disability of 10% can be taken in such cases taking into consideration the nature of the fracture, the length of treatment etc. The Tribunal has fixed the income at Rs.1,000/- and when it is worked out at 10%disability with an appropriate multiplier of 17, it would come to Rs.20,400/-, out of which Rs.10,000/- is already awarded. So the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,400/- under the head of permanent disability. For a young man who had sustained injuries coupled with shortening of the leg and stiffness, there would be loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head. The Tribunal at page 7 of the award has stated that the genuineness of Ext.A13 series was not disputed and that he had spent a sum of Rs.44,812. The Tribunal restricted it to Rs.30,000/- on the assumption that it is the only amount that is claimed. It is submitted before me that an amendment has been MFA No. 1098/01 3 effected making it as Rs.50,000/-. Even otherwise when the amount is spent, the Tribunals are competent to grant compensation which normally does not exceed the claim and in certain cases even more amount can be granted than what is claimed. So, I feel this is a fit case where an amount of Rs.14,000/- has to be awarded for the actual medical expenses. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.29,400/-.

In the result, the MFA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.29,400/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till 31.7.99 and from 23.8.01 till realisation. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA No. 1098/01 4