Dayananda vs Sabastin Dayas

Aravind Kumar, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by MACT, Sorab in MVC No. 64/2008 dated 20.08.2009.

Though matter is listed for admission by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties and also in view of the fact that certified copies of depositions and Exhibits have been made available, it is taken up for final hearing.

I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

Facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

"On account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.09.2007 claimant contended that he sustained injuries and consequential disability and as such, claiming compensation a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed. The insurer on service of notice appeared and filed its statement of objections and averments made in the claim petition came to be denied. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter before the Tribunal."

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal has framed issues for its determination and on evaluation of the evidence both oral and documentary tendered, Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, claimant has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement.

It is the contention of Mr. Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned Advocate appearing for appellant that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally on the lower side since it has not considered the evidence tendered by claimant in proper perspective and particularly the evidence of claimant - P.W.2 and as such, he seeks for enhancement of compensation under all heads.

Per contra, Sri M.U. Poonacha, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1-Insurer would support judgment and award passed by Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the award in question, it would indicate that claimant had sustained fracture of clavicle bone as per certificate/letter issued by the hospital Ex. P-303. It is also supported by another document - wound certificate - Ex. P-301 issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal indicating that claimant had sustained above said fracture. Though claimant contended that he had sustained hemorrhage on account of head injury, same was not accepted by Tribunal since wound certificate itself indicated that head injury sustained by claimant was simple injury. Claimant was an inpatient at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal from 18.09.2007 to 20.09.2007 and later on he was treated as out patient from 24.09.2007 to 26.09.2007. Claimant has not examined the Doctor who has treated him and neither he has produced disability certificate issued by the doctor assessing the disability. However, taking into consideration hospital certificate issued as per Ex. P-303 and wound certificate as per Ex. P-301, this Court is of the considered view that if additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is hereby awarded.

On account of fracture of clavicle bone, claimant would not be able to discharge his normal duties as that of a driver. As such, additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- if awarded towards loss of amenities'', it would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, it is hereby awarded.

Claimant was an inpatient at the above said hospital for three days and was treated as outpatient for two months. During this period, claimant would have spent amount towards food, medicines, nourishment, conveyance and as such, if additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards ''food, nourishment and conveyance expenses'', it would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, it is hereby awarded.

Thus, claimant in all is entitled to total additional compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.

Insofar as finding recorded by Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is concerned, same stands affirmed since there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in that regard.

For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

JUDGMENT

"(1) Appeal is hereby allowed in part.

(2) Judgment and award passed by MACT, Sorab in MVC No. 64/2008 dated 20.08.2009 is hereby modified and it is hereby ordered that claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 30,000/- which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

(3) Since claimant would be entitled to 50% of the enhanced compensation, same is ordered to be released in his favour with proportionate interest by the jurisdictional Tribunal on proper identification.

(4) Insurer to deposit the additional compensation with interest before Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."