AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for Final disposal. The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has tiled this appeal seeking enhancement.
It is on 22.2.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. that the appellant was riding Bajaj Crystal Scooter bearing No. KA-51 K-7311 and when she was proceeding from West to East towards Double Road, a lorry bearing No. KA-13-3848 came from the hind side driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant. Thereby, she fell down and sustained crush injury on her right arm and other injuries. She was shifted to KIMS Hospital for treatment, where she took treatment for about a month. She claims having suffered disability due to the injury sustained. Thereby, she made a claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the compensation for the injuries sustained. She examined herself as PW. 1 and a witness PW.2 and got marked the documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 18. The respondents did not examine any witness, but got marked Ex.R. 1 the copy of the Insurance Policy with consent. The Tribunal held actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and appreciating the material on record, granted compensation of Rs. 22,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the present appeal has been filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation ? If so, to what extent ?
The actionable negligence has not been challenged by the respondents. It is only the question of quantum of compensation that has to be considered by this Court.
As could be seen from the injury certificate Ex.P.9, the appellant has sustained a crush avulsion injury with degloving of skin on the right arm and it is said to be grievous in nature. She was in the Hospital from 22-02-2008 to 20-03-2008. She underwent surgery on two occasions. She was prescribed medicines and the case sheets which have been produced at Ex.P. 16 reveal the nature of treatment and medicines prescribed.
The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for pain, suffering and mental agony. Though the appellant has sustained a crush injury and there is no fracture, she underwent surgery on two occasions while in the hospital and she was at; in-patient for about a month. Hence, I think that the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on this head is on the lower side and it has to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.
The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 10.000/- towards medical expenses. But under Ex.P. 11 the appellant has produced 154 medical bills, the total value of which comes to Rs. 60,075/-. Though the appellant has not produced any prescriptions, that itself cannot be a ground to reject the claim made by the appellant. The case sheet at Ex.P. 16 produced by the appellant would disclose the medicines which were prescribed for the appellant while she was under treatment. The bills pertain to the said medicines prescribed end mentioned in the case sheet. So considering this aspect the approach of the Tribunal appears to be erroneous and hence, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 60,075/- towards the medical expenses incurred.
The appellant was an in-patient for about a month and she could have incurred expenses for an attendant, transportation and conveyance and a meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded under this head. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 3,000/- under this head.
The appellant was working as a Beautician. Though in her evidence, she claims that she was getting salary of Rs. 15,000/-, she has not examined her employer and no documents have been produced to prove her income at Rs. 15,000/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2008. Considering the probable income of the appellant at the time of the accident in the context of the absence of documents, I think it would be just and proper to assess the income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. ''The appellant might not have been in a position 1 o discharge normal duties for a period of about three months. Hence, she is entitled to Rs. 12.000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. The appellant suffered crush injury. She underwent surgery on two occasions. There was skin grafting and as could be seen from the evidence of PW.2, though he states that there is disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body, he has not assigned proper reasons. Taking into consideration the avocation of the appellant at the time of the accident and therefore considering the possibility of exaggeration, I am of the opinion that the material placed on record is insufficient to award compensation for loss of future income. Anyhow, the disability that she has suffered is permanent and 1 think it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 25.000/- towards loss of amenities. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,17,075/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I answer the point in affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. The compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 1,17,075/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. Out of the compensation awarded, Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the appellant in any Nationalised Bank for a period of five years and she is entitled to draw the interest. The appellant is at liberty to withdraw the amount in excess of the deposit to be made.