AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Waingankar, J.—The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 04.11.2010 in MVC No. 1425/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and XII Addl. MACT, Shorapur.
The facts in brief which gave rise to this appeal are as under:
"On 02.03.2009, the claimant an ex-serviceman was proceeding by walk in front of the road near church at Gulabwadi in Gulbarga at about 10.00 a.m. in order to go to S.P. office for the purpose of joining his duty as a newly appointed police constable. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-32/H-8028 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the right foot of the claimant. As a result, his right foot was crushed. He was shifted to Baogi Hospital, Gulbarga, where he was treated as inpatient from 02.03.2009 to 25.03.2009. During the period of hospitalisation, he underwent surgery. He spent substantial amount for his treatment. He suffered disability which incapacitated him from joining his duty as a police constable. For all these reasons, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation."
It was opposed by both the owner of the motorcycle and the insurer of the motorcycle by filing separate statement of objections. The sum and substance of the statement of objections filed by the owner and insurer is that they have denied all the material averments made out in the claim petition as to the nature of injuries, the nature of treatment, period of hospitalisation, the expenditure incurred for treatment, the avocation of the claimant, his income, loss of income etc. etc, apart from denying the negligence attributed to the rider of the motorcycle. The owner has contended that the motorcycle was insured by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., at the relevant point of time and hence he sought to direct the Insurance Company to satisfy the award if any. The Insurance Company though admitted the issuance of policy, it has contended that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence apart from contending that the compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.
The claim petition came up for consideration before the Tribunal before whom the claimant got examined himself as P.W. 1, Dr. Abdul Haq Baogi as P.W. 2. Exs. P1 to P42 were marked. On behalf of the respondents one Mithiesh Kumar was examined as R.W. 1. The Tribunal upon hearing the arguments and on appreciation of evidence awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,21,289/- together with 6% interest thereon under the various heads as under:
Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the records.
The fact that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle has been established by the claimant by cogent and convincing evidence. The claimant is not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Ex. P4 is the wound certificate issued by the Baogi Hospital, Gulbarga, where he was treated as inpatient from 02.03.2009 to 25.03.2009. It discloses the following injuries:--
"i) Cut lacerated wound over the right forefoot;
ii) Comminuted fracture of the tarsal bone-cuboid.
iii) Comminuted fracture of the tarsal bone-navicular.
iv) Fracture dislocation of the all cunnieform bones, one of the bones is dislodged and is lying in the wound."
Ex. P7 is the discharge summary issued by the same hospital. It reveals that he was admitted on 02.03.2009 and discharged on 25.03.2009. It also reveals that he had crush injury to right foot for which he underwent debridement and cleaning and suturing of the wound, the dislocated cuneiform bone was relocated and fixed, the dislocated 1st metatarsal and navicular fixed with the help of a K-wire, posterior slab applied. Ex. P8 is the radiological report which reveals as under:--
"i) Comminuted fracture of the tarsal cuboid;
ii) Comminuted undisplaced fracture of the navicular bone.
iii) Fracture dislocation of the all cunieform bones."
Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries, the nature of treatment, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the injury, pain and sufferings as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 66,289/- towards medical expenses on the strength of the medical bills produced. As such, no interference is called for.
Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses which seems to be just and reasonable. So also the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards conveyance and attendant charges is reasonable.
However, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards discomfort or future inconvenience is on the lower side. Ends of justice will be met, if an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards future inconvenience as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards loss of future earning on account of the disability suffered by the claimant. The arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the claimant being an ex-service man was appointed as police constable. He was issued with an appointment order. On account of the accidental injuries and disability suffered by him, he could not join the duty as police constable and thereby he lost the salary for the entire service period, which he would have got as a police constable. Exs. P26 and P27 are the attendance sheet for having appeared for the examination for the post of police constable. Ex. P28 is the result of the examination. Ex. P30 is an order issued by Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, appointing him as police constable temporarily and he was called upon to produce all the original certificates. Ex. P32 is the scale for which he was entitled had he joined as a police constable. The initial basic salary was Rs. 5,800/-. Ex. P33 is a letter written by the claimant to the Superintendent of Police seeking two months time to join the duty. Ex. P34 is another request letter dated 02.05.2009 seeking another two months time to join the duty. Ex. P36 is the yet another such letter for extension of three months time. Ex. P37 is the certificate issued by Baogi Hospital dated 01.06.2009 to show that he was still under treatment. Ex. P38 is an order dated 15.07.2009 whereby his appointment has been cancelled since he failed to report for duty. Ex. P39 is the representation given by him to the Superintendent of Police after cancellation of the appointment. Ex. P40 is the disability certificate for having suffered 20% disability of the whole body. Thus, from all these aforesaid documents, it is abundantly clear that he was appointed as police constable temporarily. But because of the accidental injuries, he could not report for duties. Therefore, it can be said that because of the accidental injuries and disability suffered by him, he lost his employment as a police constable. Merely because he lost his employment as a police constable, it cannot be said that he is entitled for the entire salary of a police constable till the attainment of the age of 58 years. The permanent disability of the whole body suffered by him is 20%. He is an ex-service man retired from army. It goes without saying that he is getting pension from the defence. With 20% disability of the whole body, he can easily go for some other avocation such as running some shops or to work as a security personnel and thereby he can earn some income. Even if his income is taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month, the loss of income on account of permanent disability of 20% having regard to the age of the claimant would come to Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. 1,000/- x 12 x 15). Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of future income on account of disability as against Rs. 19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Further, the claimant lost an opportunity of getting a Government job as a police constable due to accidental injuries. As such, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of Government Employment.
Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 4,46,289/- as against Rs. 2,21,289/- awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads as under:--
There shall be an enhancement of Rs. 2,25,000/- together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly, I pass the following
Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 04.11.2010 in MVC No. 1425/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and XII Addl. MACT, Shorapur, stands modified. The appellant-claimant has been awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
The respondent No. 1-insurance company is directed to deposit enhanced compensation together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
In the event of deposit, the entire enhanced compensation shall be released to the appellant/claimant.