AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted for orders, the same is taken for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties. This appeal by the claimant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 31.8.2012 in MVC No. 885/2011 on the file Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).
By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,04,800/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
It is case of the appellant that, he was aged between 29 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was working as an electrician at the time of the accident. When things stood thus, that, on 2.5.2011 at about 12.15 p.m., the appellant was proceedings in his motor cycle bearing registration No. K.A.20-6024 from Shiroor side towards Kundapura side very slowly and carefully by observing traffic rules. When he reached N.H. 17, Ambagilu Uppundha village, Kundapura Taluk, another motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-20-X-8947 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from Amgagilu market side and dashed against the appellant''s motor cycle and the appellant fell down. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained laceration over left eye brow measuring 3 x 1 cm, fracture of lateral wall of left orbit temporal bone, zygoma and zygomative arch on left side, fracture of volar bartons bone of left wrist. He was treated in the hospital as inpatient for 15 days. Even after discharge, he was under bed rest. Follow up treatment was taken as per the advice of the Doctors. Doctors-P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined on behalf of the appellant. P.W. 2, on clinical examination, has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 16%. It is case of the appellant that, he has suffered pain and agony and spent huge amount for treatment, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. He is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier to the incident. Therefore, he filed a claim petition u/s 166 of MVC Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 2,04,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities and loss of future income and what is awarded is on the lower side and requires enhancement. He is quick to point out and submit that the Doctors have assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 16%. He further submitted that the appellant is not in a position to this work as he was doing earlier. Discomfort and unhappiness persists throughout his life since there is restriction of movement of left wrist and wastage of muscles in the left wrist. This aspect has not been considered nor appreciated or awarded reasonable compensation by the Tribunal. Therefore, impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The date of accident, age, avocation of the appellant and the injuries sustained in the accident are not in dispute. It is stated that he was aged 29 years. But the Tribunal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence at Ex. P. 47, has assessed the age of the appellant as 31-35 years. The same is just and proper and we accept the same. P.W. 2-Doctor has opined that due to fracture of volar bartons in left wrist, there is restriction of movement of left wrist and wastage of muscles in the left wrist. He has further opined that the appellant cannot lift heavy objects and hold them and finds difficulty to do his work and accordingly, assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 16%. On account of discomfort and persistence, the appellant has to pull on the said difficulty through out his life. It is difficult for him to do his work due to restriction of movement of left wrist and wastage of muscles in the left wrist. Taking all these relevant factors into consideration and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem fit to award Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 1,15,200''/- (6,000 x 12 x 10 x 16/100) towards loss of future income.
However, the Tribunal after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and taking into consideration the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained and duration of treatment, has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 58,200/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. The same is just and proper and interference by this Court is not called for.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the impugned judgment and award dated 31.8.2012 in MVC No. 885/2011 on the file Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 2,72,400/- with 8% interest per annum, as against Rs. 2,04,800/- and the break- up is as follows:
Enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 67,600/-. The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 67,600/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% of the same with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
Balance compensation with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.