Hanumanthappa vs Naga Naik N.

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Appellant was the lone petitioner in a case bearing MVC No. 154/2007 which was pending on the file of MACT, Davanagere presided over by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge. He was injured in a road accident that took place on 07.12.2006 involving auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-17-A-4022. In the said accident he had sustained lacerated wounds over the forehead, over the left dorsum of hand and over the right shoulder. Apart from this he had sustained comminuted fracture of middle third of right clavicle and fracture of second left metatarsal bone and collies left. Following is the amount of compensation awarded under different heads by the tribunal as found in page 13 of its judgment.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant the amount so awarded is quite inadequate as the injuries sustained by him are during 2006. In view of awarding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings, no interference is required.

In so far as loss of amenities and pleasure in future life is concerned, only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded and this needs interference. Awarding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- under this head would meet the ends of justice.

No interference is required in regard to the medical expenses incurred.

Only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- is awarded under the head loss of earning during treatment period''. The learned Judge has not taken into consideration the loss of earning during laid up period. Looking to the number of injuries and the gravity of the injuries sustained by him it can be definitely inferred that he could not work at least for a period of three months. He was hale and healthy at the time of accident. His income is assessed at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- would be reasonable amount under this head instead of Rs. 2,500/-.

Only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded under the head-incidental charges. He was in hospital for two days and this does not require any interference.

The learned Judge has not considered the loss of future income because of the physical disability sustained by him. Even if the disability is assessed at 10%, the monthly loss of income would be Rs. 300/- and annual loss of income would be Rs. 3,600/-. The proper multiplier applicable for a person aged between 36 years and 40 years is ''15''. Then the total loss of future loss of income would be Rs. 50,000/- and this amount has to be awarded. Hence the claimant is entitled for a total compensation under different heads as follows:

Thus, the claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. instead of 6% as awarded by the tribunal. This would be just and reasonable compensation within the purview of Section 166 of MV Act.

The tribunal has directed the insurer to pay the awarded amount and to recover the same from the owner subject to the condition that the owner should execute a surety before the tribunal. The condition in so far as it relates to the owner furnishing a surety appears to be impracticable and needs to be modified by enabling the claimant to recover the entire amount that would be paid to the claimant by the insurer.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part by enhancing compensation from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 1,45,500/-. Thus the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,500/- with interest at 9% from the date of petition till realization.

It is made clear that the insurer shall indemnify the appellant and recover the same from the owner without insisting the owner to furnish a surety or security.

Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.