AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the common judgment and award dated 30th October 2009, passed in MVC No. 425/2008, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davanagere, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 19,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 1,15,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 40 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident of the appellant at about 6:30 P.M., on 07-10-2007, when the appellant was proceeding in a Bullock Cart after completing his coolie work in the lands of one KI.B. Rajashekar, near Hunasekatte on NH-4, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing No. KA-01/6019, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, due to the accident, the appellant sustained personal injuries, the bullock cart was damaged, a bullock died and another bullock got injured. Due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, he took treatment in the Hospital for a period of 4 days from 07-10-2007 to 11-10-2007.
It is his further case that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has undergone severe pain and agony and for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.
The learned counsel for appellant contends that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards the personal injuries sustained by him, injuries caused to a bullock, damages caused to the bullock-cart and death of a bullock. To substantiate the same, he submitted that, as per Exs. P15 to 19, he has claimed Rs. 65,000/- towards loss of one bullock, repair of bullock-cart, personal injuries sustained by him and also the injuries caused to another bullock. In spite of the unequivocal statement by PW1 by producing necessary documents at Exs. P15 to P19 including Ex. P20 and other relevant materials, the Tribunal has not appreciated the same and totally disbelieved the evidence of PW1 on the ground that he has claimed exorbitant claim and the said reasoning given by Tribunal is without proper application and mind and without considering and appreciating the original records available on file. Therefore, he submitted, feat, reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified accordingly.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. In the absence of any credible documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the medical bills produced by the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by appellant, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of one bullock and Rs. 2,000/- towards repair of bullock-cart, in all Rs. 19,000/- and hence, interference in the same is not called for.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 30th October, 2009. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 19,000/- under different heads, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Insurer.
After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads and also failed to award any compensation towards the treatment given to one of the bullocks which sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in the Hospital from 07-102-007 to 11-10-2007, for a period of four days During the treatment period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, it can be seen that one of the bullocks died and the impact of the accident and the speed at which the vehicle was moving can be ascertained from this. Another bullock sustained injuries and the same was treated by taking the bullock to a Veterinary Doctor. The bullock cart was also seriously damaged. In support of the case of the appellant, he has produced Exs. P15 to P20. But, he has not produced the relevant documentary evidence to establish that he has got the bullock treated by the Veterinary Doctor. But, non production of the relevant documents cannot disentitle a person from claiming reasonable compensation and it cannot take away his legitimate entitlement of compensation. The Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation towards injuries caused to one of the bullocks. Further, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of one of the bullocks, repair of the bullock-cart and personal injuries caused to the appellant is also insufficient. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation of the appellant and nature and duration of treatment, death of one of the bullocks, injuries caused to another bullock and the damage caused to the bullock-cart, I deem it fit to award a global compensation of a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with interest at 7% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 30th October 2009, passed in MVC No. 425/2008, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davanagere, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with interest at 7% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The third respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, with interest thereon at 7% 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.
On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.