ILANGO Vs. JAYAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant before the Tribunal has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The case of the claimant is that on 13-10-2001 at about 1.15 p.m., he was traveling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-25-C 6878, that the rider of the motorcycle hit a bullock-cart and in the accident, the claimant suffered head injury and also fracture to his leg. He, therefore, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000.00 for the injuries that he had suffered against the owner and the Insurance Company of the two wheeler in which he was traveling. The Tribunal has passed an award of Rs.1,40,500.00 payable with interest at 9% per annum. The compensation awarded on various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages is tabulated as below :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that soon after the accident, the injured was taken to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, from where he was shifted to M/s Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai, where he was treated as an inpatient for 27 days. In the course of the treatment, surgeries were performed both to his head as well as to his fractured leg. While, determining the compensation, the Tribunal had totally ignored the head injuries suffered by the claimant and the disfigurement caused to him and confined its attention only to the fracture he had suffered. PW-2, the doctor, Vide his disability certificate in Ext.P11, has determined the claimant's permanent disability at 65% whereas, the Tribunal has discounted it at 50% and computed the compensation at Rs.1,000.00 for every percentage of the disability. In fitness of things, the Tribunal should have treated the disability that the claimant was forced to endure for the rest of his life as functional disability. The claimant/appellant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was working as Junior Assistant in a private concern but the accident has seriously impacted not just his movements, but also his general efficiency to perform. He also added that even on the heads of non- pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, for future medical treatment that was assessed, nothing has been awarded by the Tribunal. He submitted any compensation that was awarded must be just, fair and reasonable to him, the Tribunal ought not to substitute its views to the views of the medical practitioner in order to apply such techniques as would be unrealistic in the circumstances in determining compensation. He relied on the authority in V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi & another [2014 (2) TN MAC 6 (SC)].