Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This appeal is by the injured in a road traffic accident. She was then aged 17 years. Her application for compensation has been granted by the Tribunal, awarding her an amount of Rs.29,950/-. She appeals, pleading that the amount awarded is meagre.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurer.
3. Following the accident on 21.8.1996, the appellant was admitted to the Medical College Hospital. Her initial hospitalization was from 21.8.1996 to 13.9.1996. She underwent different surgeries and obtained medical aid for the following injuries:
“Lacerated wound over the anterior lateral aspect of right upper leg, lacerated wound 4 x 0.5 c.m. over the scalp, soft tissue radial nerve is exposed and crushed, multiple abrasions, tenderness over the chest. She also sustained chip fracture lateral humeral condyle with bone loss, chip fracture head of radius with bone loss and chip fracture olecranon with bone loss.”
4. Exhibit A3 series O.P tickets, Exhibit A4 physiotherapy appointment card and Exhibit A5 reference card issued by the Medical College Hospital etc. show that the appellant was again operated in the year 2001. She continued to obtain medical aid from the Community Health Centre. She had to undergo procedures which are reflected from the prescriptions and the medical bills. It includes different surgical interventions to fix her fractures. They also called for implants which were later removed.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court referred the appellant for an assessment by the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. The Board took stock of the materials available in the case and also again examined her and certified that she has as of now 34% permanent disability and that she is physically handicapped. She has partial stiffness of the right shoulder, elbow and forearm following fracture of humerus, radius and ulna with radio ulnar dislocation. The skin above and below and at the elbow is excessively scarred and many activities of daily living are interfered with, going by that certificate. We accept and admit that certificate and mark it as Exhibit X1.
6. The sites of the injuries and the nature of the fractures and different procedures have not been appropriately taken into account by the learned Tribunal for arriving at the compensation to be granted for pain and suffering. Taking into consideration the period of hospitalization and different surgical procedures and direction to continue with the support of plaster bond for nearly six months and having regard to the nature of injuries which called for skin graft and other procedures, we think that it will only be just and reasonable to award the appellant an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, that is to say, an amount of Rs.25,000/- in excess of what has been granted by the Tribunal under that head.
7. Taking into consideration the total number of visits that the appellant had to make to the hospital including for physiotherapy, we grant the appellant an additional amount of Rs.1,500/- towards transport to hospital, over and above the amount granted by the Tribunal under that head. Towards extra nourishment, we award a further amount of Rs.3,250/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal under that head. For bystander's expenses, we award a further amount of Rs.3,000/-, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal under that head.
8. Regarding the permanent disability and the compensation for loss of earning capacity, we think that a projected monthly income of Rs.2,500/- can be taken as the income. The percentage of disability is 34% as per Exhibit X1. Compensation payable for loss of earning capacity will, therefore, be 2,500 x 12 x 18 x 34/100 = 1,83,600/-.
9. The appellant was 17 year old at the time of the accident. She had suffered grievous injuries, including permanent scars. The certificate of the Medical Board shows that she has excessive scars below and above and at the right of the elbow and many activities of daily living are interfered with. At that time, she was unmarried. On the whole, we are of the view that she is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.37,000/- towards loss of amenities over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal under that head.
10. We do not find that the impugned award needs interference on any other count.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,53,350/- with interest thereon.
In the result, this appeal is allowed, granting the appellant a further compensation of Rs.2,53,350/- with interest thereon at 9% from the date of claim petition till realization. The insurer is directed to satisfy this appellate award within a period of two months from today.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG