Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4014 (MAD)

T. Selvam v. R. Venkateswaralu

2013-11-27

S.VIMALA

body2013
Judgment : 1. This Appeal is filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation. In respect of the claim made for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,04,000/-. Contending that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate, the claimant has filed this Appeal. 2. The claimant has suffered fractures on 5th, 6th and 7th rib bones and right clavicle bones and he had remained disoriented for several days. First time, he has been admitted in hospital from 02.12.2003 to 15.12.2003. At later point of time, on account of disorientation, again he has been admitted on 27.02.2004 and discharged on 07.03.2004. 2.1. All these details find place in the Disability Certificate and the Doctor has certified the disability at 75%. 2.2. Contending that, in respect of 75% disablement, the amount of compensation awarded is low, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the fact that the claimant was not even in a position to attend his job for a period of 88 days. 2.3. Leave Certificate and Salary Certificate were filed as additional documents, with a petition (M.P.No.1 of 2013 in CMA No.3167 of 2009) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and Section 151 CPC. Those documents are admitted in evidence and marked by consent. Therefore, the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed and those two documents are marked as Exs.P-14 and P-15. 3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when there was claim for medical expenses to the extent of Rs.40,333/-, the Tribunal committed error in awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/-. 3.1. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that, out of the medical claims submitted for a sum of Rs.40,333/-, reimbursement has been granted to the extent of Rs.27,000/- and therefore, out of the balance of Rs.13,333/-, giving credit to a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the balance payable is Rs.8,000/-. 3.2. This contention is acceptable and the medical expenses is allowed at Rs.8,000/-, in addition to what was already granted by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the claimant was incapacitated to attend his normal duty for 88 days, loss of income should have been awarded for three months. 4.1. 3.2. This contention is acceptable and the medical expenses is allowed at Rs.8,000/-, in addition to what was already granted by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the claimant was incapacitated to attend his normal duty for 88 days, loss of income should have been awarded for three months. 4.1. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the claimant was not on loss of pay, and as he was on privileged leave, there was no need to sanction any amount under loss of salary. 4.2. This contention cannot be accepted, as it is settled position that, if the leave had not been availed, on account of this accident, it could have been availed for some other purpose and therefore, the loss of salary should be awarded for the claimant. Therefore, loss of salary is awarded at Rs.30,000/-by taking into account, the monthly net salary at Rs.10,000/-. 5. The third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is with reference to the pain and sufferings. Pointing out the details of injuries suffered, it is contended that pain and sufferings awarded at Rs.10,000/-is very less. Accepting the contention, it is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. 6. The final contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that with regard to compensaion for the permanent disablement. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the disability of 75% has to be awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per percentage and in that event, the amount of compensation should have been Rs.1,50,000/-. 6.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that in the year 2003, when the claim was made, usual practice was to award only a sum of Rs.1,000/- per percentage and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded is very correct. 6.2. To appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the nature of permanent disablement. 6.3. In the disability certificate, the Doctor has stated that the percentage of disability may be 5% more or 5% less. He has also calculated the percentage of disability in respect of giddiness and other consequences, which may arise or may not arise. Therefore, the percentage of disability awarded by the Doctor seems to be excessive. However, at this distant point of time, the finding on disability need not be disturbed. He has also calculated the percentage of disability in respect of giddiness and other consequences, which may arise or may not arise. Therefore, the percentage of disability awarded by the Doctor seems to be excessive. However, at this distant point of time, the finding on disability need not be disturbed. But it is suffice to award the loss on account of the permanent disability, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per percentage. On that calculation, the difference in compensation payable, on account of permanent disablement will be Rs.37,500/- and the same is awarded. 7. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has been taking treatment continuously, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is awarded towards cost of attendant. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable would be Rs.1,88,500/- (Rs.1,04,000/-(already awarded by the Tribunal) + Rs.84,500/-). 8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,04,000/- to Rs.1,88,500/-, enhancing the award amount by Rs.84,500/-. Therefore, the enhanced compensation amount is payable by the Insurance Company / second respondent, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition to till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. As already referred to in paragraph 2.3 of this judgment, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed and the two documents, in question therein, are marked as Exs.P-14 and P-15. No costs.