Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3924 (MAD)

K. Mani v. N. Ulagaguru

2013-11-14

S.VIMALA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, aggrieved over the inadequacy of compensation awarded. 2. The claimant, Mani, aged 40 years, a fisherman, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, met with an accident on 09.11.2007. In respect of the injuries sustained by him, he claimed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation. The Claims Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, awarded only a sum of Rs.19,000/- as compensation. This order is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not quantified the compensation under the appropriate heads of claim and that has resulted in grant of insufficient amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court Ex.P-1, the discharge summary, in support of the submission. 4. A perusal of Ex.P-1 the discharge summary would go to show that he has been hospitalised for a period of sixteen days and he has been given treatment for hemorrhage and edema in the brain. When he has been in continuous treatment for a period of sixteen days, the inference would be that the injury suffered ought to have been serious in nature. 4.1. The compensation should be quantified by taking into account the nature of injuries sustained. The discharge summary, Ex.P-1, discloses that he has been given treatment in the Institute of Neurology. The disability certificate, Ex.P-3, discloses that the claimant is suffering from vertigo to the extent of 10% and chronic headache to the extent of 10%. These disabilities would have a natural impact upon the earning capacity, as he is a fisherman. 4.2. If he is consistently suffering from headache, his voyage to the sea, that too deep into the sea to catch fishes would be very difficult. Considering those circumstances, the quantification should be done in appropriate manner. 5. In respect of 20% disability, compensation to be awarded, as per the usual practice, is Rs.2,000/- per percentage, i.e., Rs.40,000/-. Towards cost of attendant, a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,000/- are awarded. Because of the injuries, the claimant would not have been in a position to earn for at least two months. Therefore, loss of income for a period of two months is quantified at Rs.9,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 2). Towards cost of attendant, a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,000/- are awarded. Because of the injuries, the claimant would not have been in a position to earn for at least two months. Therefore, loss of income for a period of two months is quantified at Rs.9,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 2). Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.64,000/- is awarded as compensation. 6. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.19,000/- to Rs.64,000/-. The insurance company shall deposit the entire amount of compensation now awarded, less the amount already deposited if any, along with proportionate interest within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant / claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, less the amount already withdrawn if any. No costs.