AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajulu
Though the matter had come up for admission, with the consent of both parties, it taken for consideration on merits.
The claimant in MVC No. 8935/2007 on the file of XII Additional S.C. Judge and Member, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore, is the appellant in this appeal.
The case of the claimant is, that on 2.12.2006 at stout 7.00 p.m. white he was crossing on Bangalore Bellary Bye-pass road, near kogilu Cross, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA 07 F 1057, has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the claimant, which resulted in injuries to the claimant. For the pain and agony suffered by the claimant, claimant seeks for compensation.
The respondent-KSRTC filed objections denying the age, occupation and income of the claimant, called upon the claimant to prove the accident, Impact, contend that the claim is exaggerated. So, plead for dismissal of the claim application.
After framing of the issues, PWs.1 &. 2 are examined, EXS.P1 to P15 are marked. The learned member of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,79,680/- with interest at 6% p.a.
The learned advocate for the claimant contend that; looking to the nature of injuries, the accident is of the year 2006, the income assessed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. by the Tribunal is lessor and seeks for re-assessment of income at Rs.5,000/- p.m. Further, contends that the liver being an important part of the body, the claimant being a coolie, he will not be in a position to the work as he was doing earlier So, seeks re-fixation of the income so also for enhancement of compensation on other heads. Learned advocate for KSRTC supports finding of the Tribunal. Added to that no documents are produced to prove occupation, income. So, pray for dismissal of the appeal.
I have carefully considered the material submissions, accident is admitted. Actionable negligence is not disputed. Though the claimant has not produced any documents to support his income, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the age, occupation and the year of accident, has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. The doctor has assessed 8% disability to the whole body. There is no reason for interference. However, the compensation awarded towards loss of future earning requires, interference. It works out to Rs.69,120/- (8% of 4,000 = 320 x 12 x 18) rounded of to Rs. 70,000/- as against Rs.51,840/-. The enhanced compensation is Rs. 18,160/-.
Under the head of unhappiness and loss of expectancy, the impact of the accident being on the liver, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. Similarly, further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance and attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/-towards toss of Income during Said up period. In all, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.53,160/-. It shall carry interest at 6% from the date of application till deposit. Respondent is directed to deposit in three months.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part.