AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Admit.
This appeal arises out of the impugned common judgment and award dated 05th June 2004 passed in MVC No. 179/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Bhadravathi (''Tribunal'' for short).
The Tribunal, by its common judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,18,200/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 3,28,200/-) on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road traffic accident. Being not satisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
The brief facts of the case are:
The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years as on the date of accident and was working as a cook at Bhadravathi, earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. On account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he had filed a claim petition u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation against the respondents, contending that on 16.06.1999, he was proceeding in a Yamaha motorbike bearing registration No. KA-17/H-4693 along with another person from Chikmagalur to Bhadravathi via. Kadur in a normal speed, observing all traffic rules. When they reached near Saraswathipura gate on K.M. Road, a lorry bearing registration No. MEC-4611 came from Kadur in high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike. As a result, the appellant fell down and sustained crush injury on the left thigh, sutured injury on the left thigh sutured injury on the left side of head and fracture of left tibia and fibula. He has undergone treatment as in patient for 118 days in the hospital and the doctor has assessed the functional disability at 70% to the left lower limb. It is the further case of the appellant that he has spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Hence, he filed a claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation.
The said claim petition had come up before the Tribunal on 05th June 2004. The Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, taking into consideration age and avocation of the appellant, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,18,200/- under different heads with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard learned Counsel for appellant and learned Counsel for 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant at the outset is that the Tribunal has committed grave error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation towards pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, loss of future income, future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects, without taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has undergone treatment for 118 days and the doctor has assessed the disability at 70% to the left lower limb. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability at 70% to the whole body. The appellant is a cook and he cannot sit and stand and cannot walk without the help of a stick. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable compensation may be awarded under different heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award.
As against this, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company sought to justify the impugned judgment and award inter alia contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable However, he fairly submitted that it requires enhancement under some heads in accordance with law having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant.
After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties, the only point that arise for our consideration is as to
Whether the of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
On careful perusal of the material on record and impugned judgement and award, it emerges that, it is not in dispute that the appellant has met with an accident on 16.06.1999 and he sustained grievous injuries as stated supra, and undergone treatment for a period of 118 days. That the doctor has assessed the disability at 70% to the left, lower limb. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability reasonably having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and nature and duration of treatment undergone by him. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he is not in a position to work as efficiently as he was doing earlier and he has difficulty in walking. Taking all these relevant factors into consideration, we can fairly assess the disability at 35% in respect of whole body, to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal has failed to take into consideration, the nature and duration of treatment undergone by the appellant. The appellant has undergone pain and agony during treatment and he has to undergo discomfort, unhappiness during the rest of his life. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, his marriage prospects are affected to quite a large extent. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of marriage aspects and future medical expenses. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. Therefore, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 15,000/-; a sum of Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period; a sum of Rs. 40,000/-towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness; a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
So far as the compensation of Rs. 71,200/-awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is concerned, the same is just and reasonable. Therefore, it does not call for interference.
However, the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- towards loss of future income. In the instant case, having regard to the age of the appellant, the multiplier applicable is ''18'' in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, As stated above, we have already assessed the disability at 35% to the whole body. Therefore, taking his monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- we redetermine compensation towards loss of future income at a sum of Rs. 1,51,200/- (Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 18 x 35/100) as against Rs. 1,92,000/-.
In the light of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgement and award passed on 05th June 2004 by the Tribunal in MVC. 179/99 is hereby modified and the break up is as under:
(i) Pain and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/- (ii) Medical expenses: Rs. 71,200/- (iii) Conveyance, nourishing food Rs. 20,000/- and attendant charges: (iv) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 24,000/- period: (v) Loss of amenities, discomfort Rs. 40,000/- and unhappiness: (vi) Loss of future income: Rs. 1,51,200/- [Rs. 2,000/- X 12 X 18 X 35/100] (vii) Loss of marriage prospects: Rs. 30,000/- (viii) Future medical expenses: Rs. 20,000/- _____________ TOTAL: Rs. 4,06,400/- _____________
Thus, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,06,400/- as against the compensation of Rs. 3,18,200/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 88,200/-with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by the Insurance company, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 88,200/-, 50% of the same with proportionate interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with permission for appellant to withdraw the accrued interest periodically.
The remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant immediately.
Office is directed to draw the award accordingly.