The court reinforced the requirement for compensation to adequately address the severity of injuries and loss of income, emphasizing judicial standards in personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

Claimant is the appellant. He staked claim for compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 21.09.1996. He preferred the claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Originally the claim was staked under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Later necessary amendments were made and the claim was pressed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He had allegedly suffered multiple injuries including multiple fractures. He had suffered with trans-scaphoid perilunar dislocation right wrist, fracture of the radial styloid, fracture of the ulnar styloid and compound fracture right 1st and 2nd toe. He was treated with wound debridement strapping, closed reduction and plaster application. He was discharged on 23.09.1996. He allegedly suffered permanent disablement, the percentage of which was certified by the doctors under Exts.A11 and A12 disability certificates to be 12%.

2. The Tribunal directed payment of a total amount of Rs.32,494/- as per the details given below:

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the insurer. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that loss of earnings was taken into consideration only for a period of 2 months. Multiple fractures have been suffered and the appellant was involuntarily unemployed for a period much in excess of 3 months. We are satisfied that under clause 5 of the Second Schedule, loss of income for a period of 3 months can safely be granted.

4. For pain and suffering, only an amount of Rs.1,000/-

has been awarded by the Tribunal. We have already noted that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries including multiple fractures. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.5,000/- stipulated under clause 4(1)(a) of the Second Schedule can safely be awarded.

5. The only other contention raised is about the extent of disablement. No medical practitioner was examined though Ext.A11 and A12 were thrust into court. They give details of the nature of the disability suffered. What is crucially relevant is the extent of reduction in earning capacity. Clause 5 mandates that the schedule 1 of Employees Compensation Act has to be followed while ascertaining percentage of loss of earning capacity. The injury suffered are not scheduled injuries under Schedule 1 of the Employees Compensation Act. Therefore reliance will have to be placed on medical evidence. Notwithstanding the fact that the authors of Exts.A11 and A12 have not been examined, we are satisfied that the appellant had suffered the specific items of physical disability referred to in those certificates. We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that 6% can safely be reckoned as the extent of reduction in earning capacity.

6. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head demands or warrants appellate interference.

7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.17,800/- as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

i) Loss of earnings : Rs.3,000.00 [(Rs.3000 X 3 months =

9000) minus 6000]

ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.4,000.00 (5000 minus 1000)

iii) Reduction in earning power : Rs.10,800.00 [(3000 X 12 X 15 X 6/100 =

32,4000) minus 21,600]

--------------------

Total : Rs.17,800.00 =========

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. This is inadequate, contends counsel. We agree. We are satisfied that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% per annum.

9. In the result:

a) This appeal is allowed in part;

b) The app