01Facts
On 30 July 2009, the appellant was injured while riding as a pillion passenger in a motorcycle–truck collision. She sustained multiple fractures and suffered 53% permanent disability; the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 8,81,600.
¶ 1–2On her appeal, she challenged the amounts awarded for pain, shock and suffering and sought compensation for loss of amenities. The insurer had not appealed the award for loss of future earnings.
¶ 3–602Issues
i.1. Whether the compensation awarded for pain, shock and suffering was adequate in light of the appellant’s injuries, surgery and 76-day hospitalisation.
¶ 4, 6–8ii.2. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of amenities, given her 53% permanent disability.
¶ 4, 6, 903Law Applied
The judgment cites no statute or precedent. It applies the compensatory principle that damages under relevant heads should reflect the claimant’s injuries, treatment and resulting disability.
¶ 5, 10–11It also leaves undisturbed the accepted award for loss of future earnings and the Tribunal’s assessment of medical expenses.
¶ 5, 10–1104Reasoning
The Court considered the appellant’s 76-day hospitalisation, surgical procedures and fractures to her tibia, fibula, pelvic rami and ribs, and found Rs. 25,000 inadequate for pain, shock and suffering; it enhanced that amount to Rs. 1,00,000.
¶ 8In view of the same hospitalisation period, it increased the amount for special diet, attendant and transportation expenses from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000. Because the Tribunal had awarded nothing for loss of amenities despite the appellant’s 53% permanent disability, the Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 under that head. It affirmed the medical-expense award and did not reconsider loss of earnings.
¶ 8–1105Holding
The appeal was allowed to the extent of enhancement. The appellant was awarded an additional Rs. 2,04,976, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.
¶ 12–14The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks, for disbursement to the appellant through NEFT/RTGS after verification.
¶ 12–14Original Court PDF
SHARDABEN W/O NAVINCHANDRA PATEL AND D/O KALIDAS LALABHAI PATELvsMAHESH SITARAM CHAUHAN (DELETED)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
