Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Sh. M.L. Mahajan, counsel for the appellant claimant urged that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient looking at the circumstances of the case as appellant suffered head injuries and also paralysis of the right hand and right leg and on account of head injury, he developed mental as well as physical disability. The counsel submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in not granting any compensation on account of pain & suffering, mental pain and agony, loss for earning capacity, loss for expectation of life, loss of amenities in life, disfigurement, discomfort besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress and also to keep a permanent attendant for rest of his life. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal also erred in not granting non pecuniary damages on account of total wreck because the appellant has become permanently disabled person being of unsound mind. It is stated that since appellant has become a person of unsound mind, he requires the assistance of an attendant throughout his life and Tribunal should have awarded compensation on that count. It is also stated that Ld. Tribunal has erred in deducting the pension while calculating the income of the appellant. The counsel further stated that Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and same should have been Rs.2Lacs as appellant is incurring expenses on medicine and has to incur so throughout his life. It is also submitted that Ld. Tribunal granted compensation only for 11 years whereas same should be granted for 20 years. The counsel also stated that the order of Ld. Tribunal directing 50% of the amount awarded to be deposited in FDR for a period of six years is not justified in the present case as appellant has no source of income and is dependent upon this amount for meeting the expenses of his treatment and for looking after his family. The counsel also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest @15 per annum in place of only 12% per annum.

10. On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant had not placed on record any medical bill. As regards medical expenses, the tribunal took cognizance of the fact that the appellant sustained serious injuries; suffered head injuries and also paralysis of the right hand and right leg and on account of head injury, he developed mental as well as physical disability and awarded Rs. 10,000/- even though the appellant could not prove that he had incurred Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard and the same is not interfered with.

11. As regards conveyance expenses, nothing has been brought on record. The appellant sustained serious injuries; suffered head injuries and also paralysis of the right hand and right leg and on account of head injury, he developed mental as well as physical disability injuries. The tribunal after taking notice of this fact and in the absence of any cogent evidence should have awarded Rs. 5,000/- for conveyance expenses. Thus, the award is modified in this regard.

12. As regards special diet expenses, although nothing was brought on record by the appellant to prove the expenses incurred by him towards special diet but still the tribunal did not take notice of the fact that since the appellant sustained serious injuries and sustained serious injuries; suffered head injuries and also paralysis of the right hand and right leg and on account of head injury, he developed mental as well as physical disability, thus he must have also consumed protein-rich/special diet for his early recovery and ought to have awarded Rs. 5,000/- for special diet expenses. Thus, the award is modified in this regard.

13. As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal did not award anything to the appellant. The appellant sustained serious injuries; suffered head injuries and also paralysis of the right hand and right leg and on account of head injury, he developed mental as well as physical disability and other minor wounds on the body. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental pain & suffering should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-.

14. As regards the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to permanent disability, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant. Learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier and also took note of the rise in income. I do not see any reason to interfere in the same.