Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4017 (MAD)

K. Murugan v. A. G. Elangovan

2013-11-27

S.VIMALA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The appeal has been filed by the claimant, who was operated for parietal depressed fracture. When he claimed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.21,500/-, under the following break-up details: Heads Amount (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 10,000/- Loss of income for 3 months @ Rs.3,000/- per month 9,000/- Damage to clothing 500/- Transport expenses 1,000/- Extra nourishment 1,000/- Total 21,500/- 2. Aggrieved over the inadequacy of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to the wound certificate filed in this case. A perusal of the wound certificate would go to show that the claimant had been admitted in the hospital on 13.06.1997. The lacerated injury over the left parietal region, i.e., 6 x 1 x 1 cm., has been termed as grievous injury by the doctor and he has been operated for parietal depressed fracture. The claimant had been advised to attend neuro O.P. after a period of 2 weeks at the time of discharge. He has been discharged on 24.06.1997. 4. Dr.Soundarrajan has been examined as P.W.2 to speak about the disability suffered by the claimant. According to the evidence of the doctor, the claimant was treated for the fracture in the left portion of the skull. A hole was put in the left side parietal region for the purpose of removing the blood clot. The claimant had been certified to be unfit for any physical work. The doctor has stated in the certificate that the claimant was in treatment from 1997 upto 1999 and he has to take further treatment also. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent, when the doctor has not certified about the percentage of disability, the claimant is not entitled to ask for multiplier method of quantification in respect of permanent disablement. 6. Just because the percentage of disability is not mentioned in the medical certificate, that cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the claimant did not have any permanent disablement. The disablement, as explained by the doctor during evidence, ought to have been appreciated by the Claims Tribunal and the claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective. The disablement, as explained by the doctor during evidence, ought to have been appreciated by the Claims Tribunal and the claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment and the nature of operation performed, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the quantum of compensation. 7. Taking note of the disabilities stated above, the compensation is quantified at Rs.1,50,000/- and the break-up details are furnished as hereunder: Heads Amount (Rs.) Loss of income for 6 months 15,000/- Permanent disability 1,00,000/- Damage to clothing 1,000/- Transport expenses 5,000/- Extra nourishment 5,000/- Pain and sufferings 15,000/- Loss of enjoyment of amenities 4,000/- Attendant charges 5,000/- Total 1,50,000/- 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the award of compensation from Rs.21,500/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. It is represented that the entire award amount along with interest and cost, as ordered by the Tribunal, has already been deposited by the second respondent / insurance company. In view of the order passed now enhancing the award, the second respondent / insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, 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 entire award amount, less the amount already withdrawn. No costs.