JUDGMENT
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the insufficiency of compensation as against the claim of Rs. 2,40,000 in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident on 8.5.1989 at about 1.30 p.m. between a lorry bearing No. MYA 7173 and cycle. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are as follows:
(1) L.W. nearly 2″ x 4″ x 1″ extending from knee joint (Lt) to (Lt) big toe, with skin loss.
(2) Fracture both bones in lower V3rd (Rt) side.
(3) Lacerated wound over the (Rt.) knee joint about 4″ x 3″ x V4.
2. Heard the appellant. Service on the respondent No. 1 held to be sufficient.
3. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, by consent, the MFA itself is taken up for final disposal.
4. The court below has chosen to grant Rs. 25,000 for shock, pain and treatment relying upon the dictum in Basavaraj v. Shekhar 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka). It was a case of a young man of 24 years and he was inpatient for 17 days and he had fractures sustained in similar fashion. There was a comminuted fracture of right leg tibia and fibula middle 1/3rd and of the left leg fracture of left tibia and fibula in addition to some other injuries. Following that dictum and the principle in that case, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering. As against the claim for medical expenses, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000 and in respect of claim for attendant, the finding that there was no attendant engaged and further holding that there is no question of any loss of earnings as the injured was a student. The Tribunal granted Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities. Thus, totally Rs. 45,000 was granted by way of compensation.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the injuries suffered by the minor have affected the bright future of the minor and even after three years of accident the appellant is undergoing number of processes of treatment like skin-grafting and there has been continuous treatment investing more than Rs. 40,000 and whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000. The grant of Rs. 10,000 is too low under the head loss of amenities and earning capacity as the appellant is still moving with calliper shoes even after a lapse of five years. The incapacity of the injured to attend his social activities like sports, etc.; due to evulsion of skin, muscle and thereon skin-grafting as there is con-tracture of nerves along with ugly look and unable to walk, squat, play, riding bicycle, the award of Rs. 25,000 is too low. The expert medical opinion as to limitation of knee movement, shortening of leg by 1″, stiffness of ankle and the disability of 30 per cent in addition to other disabilities like unable to walk, run and participate in sports, have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Thus, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. In the claim petition, originally a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was claimed under the heads of general damages, apart from Rs. 10,000 for medical, conveyance and nutrition till date. The learned Counsel, however, submitted that subsequently there has been an amendment and under the amendment a total claim of Rs. 2,40,000 was made, in particular Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 10,000 is claimed towards medical expenses, conveyance and nutrition. As against such a claim, Tribunal has granted only Rs. 45,000.
7. Coming to the injuries, the injuries mentioned in para 9 and also found in the evidence of the doctor, PW 3, appears to be two injuries of lacerated wound and third injury is a fracture of both bones of left leg which was visible through the wound. It is the evidence of the doctor that on 9.5.1989 under general anaesthesia wound debride-ment and calcaneal traction was given. After consulting plastic surgeons in the hospital, on 11.5.1989 and 22.6.1989 under G.A. skin-grafting was done. On 1.7.1989 and 6.7.1989 under G.A. manipulations for the fractures were carried out and the claimant was discharged on 13.7.1989 with above knee POP cast. The appellant regularly followed the treatment as an outpatient on the dates mentioned in discharge summary. It has taken nearly one year for the patient to start weight bearing and during this time he was advised weight relieving, calliper shoes and crutches as walking aids. He was last seen on 23.12.1992. The doctor further deposed that the appellant has got an ugly scar extending from left knee to the great toe which is giving him skin problems. There is blunting of sensation over that area. Knee movement limited up to few degrees because of the scarring. Leg length is shortened by one inch (left leg) for which he has been advised to wear sole raise shoes. X-ray shows fracture has united well in acceptable position. Ultimately he says disability at 30 per cent of the limb. The learned Judge also noted the claimant in the court hall with crutches and calliper shoes. There is an ugly scar from left thigh to the great toe. On the basis of the above evidence of the doctor, it is claimed that the grant of Rs. 25,000 is too lower figure. The Tribunal however relied upon the judgment referred to above and fixed Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal even considered the award of compensation in respect of various High Courts with regard to leg injury.
8. It is found that when leg was amputated for 6 years boy, the Rajasthan High Court has granted Rs. 50,000 as against the compensation granted by She Tribunal at Rs. 31,675, in the case of lnder Lal v. Narendra Kumar 1985 ACJ 303 (Rajasthan). In respect of amputation of one leg, for a girl of 12 years, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted Rs. 35,000 towards non-pecuniary losses and Rs. 16,000 towards medical expenses and past expenses for artificial limb, in K. Sapana v. B. Appa Rao 1988 ACJ 113 (AP). When both legs were amputated, for a man of 22 years, the Punjab & Haryana High Court considered grant of Rs. 48,000 for loss of earnings and suffering, etc. and Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses in Kanji v. Chohal Singh (1988) 1 TAC 375. In respect of amputation of right leg, for a student of 25 years, the Assam High Court has considered grant of Rs. 51,421 as proper and reasonable, in Assam State Road Trans. Corporation v. Ha-laluddin Ahmed 1988 ACJ 711 (Gauhati). In another case of Delhi High Court in respect of amputation of left leg, has awarded Rs. 40,000 as proper compensation as general damages and special damages in Inderjit v. Mehar Singh 1988 ACJ 389 (Delhi). The Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered amputation of the right leg from thigh and awarded Rs. 30,000 as compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum as reasonable in Madhyia v. Ramesh Chandra 1988 (2) TAC 89. The Kerala High Court in United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. C.P. Varghese 1988 ACJ 152 (Kerala), considered Rs. 50,000 as reasonable compensation for amputation of right leg and right finger. The Rajasthan High Court in Satish Kumar v. Murlidhar Ishardas 1985 ACJ 808 (Rajasthan), has considered Rs. 16,000 as proper compensation when the cyclist, aged 35 years, got his right leg seriously injured which was shortened by 3/4″ and the bone-joint did not remain in order. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lt. Col. Om Adhar v. Bhushan Kumar 1989 ACJ 508 (P&H), in respect of a 36 years lady for the leg shortened due to fracture, a compensation of Rs. 20,000 was held to be reasonable. Our own High Court in Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. M.C. Shashidhara 1984 ACJ 622 (Karnataka), for injury to left leg amputated, a sum of Rs. 33,000 was granted as against the grant of Rs. 46,000 by the Tribunal.
9. The above decisions give an indication as to what normally is the compensation payable for the injuries sustained in the accident.
10. It is true that pain and suffering of a man due to the injuries sustained in an accident, is certainly not compensatable in terms of money. But there should be guidelines and the compensation cannot be given without any rule or regulations and at the whims and fancies of the claimants, who naturally make a fabulous claim. That is how the Tribunal has considered the dictum of our High Court in Basavaraj v. Shekhar 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka), referred to above, that a sum of Rs. 25,000 is reasonable and proper taking into consideration the fact that the accident took place in 1989. In the circumstances, however, I feel that taking into consideration the figures and pictures of the boy, a sum of Rs. 50,000 should be awarded instead of Rs. 25,000 under that head.
11. So far as treatment is concerned, though originally it has been claimed at Rs. 10,000, subsequently it was amended to Rs. 20,000 and later to Rs. 40,000. The Tribunal has granted only Rs. 10,000. It is true that no special attendant was engaged to look after the patient and the Tribunal has therefore not granted the compensation for taking care of the boy. However, as the future expenses incurred for attending the doctor for nearly three years, I feel a sum of Rs. 25,000 be awarded towards medical expenses. In respect of the other heads, namely, loss of amenities and earning capacity, I find that the boy has completed his graduation and trying to get MBA or M.Com. course and he is still a student. Therefore, his earning capacity is not affected on account of the injuries in the accident that has happened. In this view, I confirm Rs. 10,000 granted towards loss of amenities and earning capacity.
12. In the result, a sum of Rs. 85,000 is granted as compensation enhancing from a sum of Rs. 45,000. The other awards regarding interest and deposit is confirmed in respect of the additional amount.
13. The appeal is partly allowed.