Kutub vs Pandurang Ankush Mote and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J - Claimant-injured dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation by Judgment and award dated 22-10-2013 in MVC 81/2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) No. IV, Bijapur has presented this appeal for higher compensation.

In the accident that occurred on 3-8-2011 involving a motor vehicle petitioner sustained the following injuries :

"1. Comminuted supracondylar fracture of right lower end of femur with displaced fracture segments.

Compound fracture of left lemur upper end with displaced fracture segments.

Multiple abrasions over right knee.

Head injury".

In the claim petition filed before MACT invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 30,90,000/-. In the trial before MACT one Dr. Shantappa S. Nagathan was examined as PW-2 in support of the claim of the claimant hat he suffered from permanent disability of 25% to 30% to left lower limb and 45%-50% to right lower limb. The MACT declined to accept the evidence of PW-2 as credible evidence since he is not the Doctor who treated the claimant for the injuries and therefore reckoned 20% whole body disability by methof of calculation that disability to both the limbs together is 70% and ⅓rd of the same is the whole body disability. Reckoning 14,500/- as monthly income of claimant since there was no material whatsoever placed before MACT, in support of the same, and applying 20% disability, arriving at Rs. 900/- as the future monthly loss of income and to the annual loss was applied multiplier 16 for age 32 of the appellant to arrive at Rs. 1,72,800/- towards loss of future income. To that was added Rs. 13,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period; Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant charges, nourishment and conveyance and Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses, in addition to Rs. 1,45,600/- towards medical bills in all totalling to Rs. 4,06,900/- with interest at 6% p.a. by Judgment and award impugned.

There is force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant that MAT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 4,500/- as the monthly income more appropriately on 3-8-2011 the date of accident and injury. Claimant was aged 32 an able bodied young man capable of earning at least Rs. 6,000/- since that is the income that is recognised for a unskilled labour during yer 2011 in the Lokadalat. Reckoning 20% as the disability, the monthly loss of income is Rs. 1,200 /- and to the annual loss applying multiplier 16 the total loss of income is Rs. 2,30,400/-. Deducting Rs. 1,72,800/- awarded by MACT the balance payable is Rs. 57,600/-. During laid up period petitioner is entitled to additional sum of Rs. 4,500/-. Petitioner suffered grievance injuries noticed supra and the award of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering by MACT is on the lower side hence petitioner is entitled to additional Rs. 25,000/- which is just and proper. Towards loss of amenities MACT awarded a meager sum of Rs. 15,000/-keeping in mind nature of injuries sustained it is just and proper to award additional sum of Rs. 30,000/-. In the circumstances appellant is entitled to 71,17,100/- in addition to what is awarded by MACT.

In the result appeal is allowed in part and Judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the appellant to Rs. 1,17,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to what is awarded by MACT and in all respects remains unaltered.