AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals by the claimants are directed against the common judgment and award dated 28th October 2008, passed; in M.V.C: No. 1745/2007 & 1746/2007, respectively by the IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore,(SCGH-7), (for short, Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 29.500/- & Rs. 31,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. awarded in favour of the respective claimants as against their respective claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-each, is inadequate.
The claimant in M.F.A. No. 1769/2009 claims to be aged about 35 years, a businessman by profession, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. The claimant in M.F.A. No. 1770/2009 claims to be aged about 60 years, and a home maker and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 7:30 A.M. on 07-05-2006 near Bhimanna Kuppe Cross, when both the claimants were travelling in a Maruthi van. on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing No. KA-05/MB-6660 is not in dispute. it is also not in dispute that the claimant in the first case sustained concussive head injury and lacerated wound over frontal area bone deep, lacerated wound over upper lip, which are said to be grievous in nature as per the Opinion of the Doctor and in respect of the claimant in second case, PW3, Doctor has deposed that there is wasting of right shoulder girdle, tenderness over light shoulder joint, all the movements of right shoulder are painful and restricted and she cannot lift weight, cannot carry weight and assessed the disability at 30% to the right upper limb and 10% to the whole body. Due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, they were shifted to Mysore-road Hi-tech Hospital for treatment;.
It is their further case that, on account of the accident, they sustained the injuries stated above and for the said treatment, they have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the Appellants in both the appeals filed the claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, each against the Respondents. The said claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 28th October, 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 29,500/- and Rs. 31,000/- respectively under different heads, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
I have gone through the grounds urged in both the appeal and also the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and also the Insurer in both the appeals.
After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both parties, and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal at Rs. 29,500/- and Rs. 31,000/- respectively is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. The first claimant was in-patient in the Hospital for six days and the second claimant for in-patient in the Hospital for five days and during this period, they must have spent some amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The first claimant, being aged about 37 years, has sustained grievous injuries such as concussive head injury and other injuries, which may come in the way of his discharge of duties. PW3- Doctor has deposed that, the second claimant has sustained disability of 30% in respect of right upper limb and 10% in respect of whole body. Further, he stated that she is not in a position to lift weight and cannot carry weight. She being aged about 60 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of her life. She being a home maker, the disability suffered would come in the way of her day to day activities. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age avocation and the disability in each case, I deem it fit to award a global sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively to the claimants, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeals filed by both the Appellants are allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 28th October 2008, passed in M.V.C. No. 1745/2007 & 1746/2007, by the IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore, (SCCH-7). is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of claimant in M.V.C. No. 1745/2007 and Rs. 30.000/- in respect of claimant in M.V.C. No. 1746/2007, with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to compensation awarded by Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in both the appeals, with interest thereon at 6% per annum. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released In favour of the Appellants in both the appeals, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.