Case: M. Gopalakrishnan Vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited &amp; Another

The appellant, who was 21 years old at the relevant time, suffered grievous injuries on 27.5.2006 when he was hit by lorry bearing No. AP 26 T 2421. He was treated in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. He filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs by alleging that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver; that as a result of accident he suffered multiple fractures and major degloving injury on the right foot and ankle, serious injury in the ulna and foot and multiple internal and external injuries all over the body; that the bottom of the right foot was completely darkened because there was no skin growth and broken metatarsal bones are growing downwards and he would have to undergo operations till the age of 30 years for removal of the bones and that he will not be able to the job of cleaner which he was doing at the time of accident.The driver of the lorry involved in the accident remainedRespondent No.1 insurance company filed reply and denied the averments contained in the claim petition. It also pleaded that the accident was caused due to carelessness of the appellant himself and respondent No.2 was not at all responsible.the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:?1) Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 T 2421?2) Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation?4) To what relief??In support of his claim, the appellant examined two witnesses and produced the documents which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. Respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence, oral or documentary.After analyzing the evidence produced by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents had not adduced any evidence to controvert the appellant?s assertion about the mode and manner of accident, the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the lorry had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in an accident and consequential injuries on the appellant?s body. The Tribunal then briefly considered the nature of injuries, the expenses incurred by the appellant for medical treatment and awarded the following sums:1.Loss oftransportation to theto clothing, articles, andn and suffering due toss of expectation of martialagony and torture due to limping and shortening ofand suffering due tocrush injury on right foot and loss of skin in the sole ofhe Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9.5% from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of amount by respondent Nos.1 and 2.The cross appeals filed by the appellant and respondent No.1 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 8.10.2010. He referred to the statement of the doctor that the appellant had suffered 40% disability but declared that it is only a partial disability for which the appellant could be awarded Rs.The learned Single Judge further observed that the injuries suffered by the appellant were not such which may result in loss of expectation of proper marital alliance and set aside the compensation awarded under that heard. Under other heads also the learned Single Judge felt that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on higher side and reduced the total compensation from Rs.2,70,600/. Simultaneously, he reduced the rate of interest from 9.5% to Rs.7.5%.

Reasoning: In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.The most serious error committed by the Tribunal and the High Court is that neither of them awarded compensation to the appellant for future medical treatment. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for nourishing food, pain and suffering, loss of income during the period of treatment and thereafter and loss of amenities of life including marital prospect and expectation of life was also wholly inadequate. By reducing amount under various heads the High Court virtually rubbed salt in the wound of the appellant.In our considered view, the High Court was not at all justified in declaring that the disability suffered by the appellant was partial. While the appellant had proved the nature of injury and the extent of disability by examining the doctor, who opined that the appellant had suffered 40% permanent disability and further that he will have to undergo operations till his 30th year for removal of the bones. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, without assigning any reason, declared that the disability was partial. Therefore, that part of the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.We are further of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court were bound to award adequate compensation in lieu of the expenses already incurred for treatment and also formedical expenses? for next 9 years keeping in view the escalating cost of medical treatment. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the fact that the appellant will have to undergo 9 operations for removal of the downward growing bones, we deem it proper to award total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs under this head.