Nirmala Devi vs Rajesh N. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 05/11/2014, passed in MVC No. 6341/2013, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-09), (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 39 years as on the date of the accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 31.8.2013 at about 9.30 a.m. the appellant was crossing M.S. Palya road near Gangamma Gudi, Bangalore, at that time, the rider of a motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.04.ER.8839 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to her. Due to which, she sustained injuries. Immediately, she was hospitalized and taken treatment as an inpatient and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, she has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the appellant that, she has spent considerable amount towards medical and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by her, she has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under different heads on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. It is the specific case of the appellant in her evidence as P.W. 1 that she is getting head ache and giddiness on account of the injuries sustained by her to the heads, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, occurrence of the accident on account of the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. As per Ex. P4-wound certificate, appellant has sustained head injury and abrasion on her left leg and left elbow. There is no evidence to show the number of days treatment taken by the appellant as an patient in the hospital. But she has not produced any medical bills to show that the actual medical expenses incurred by her. It is significant to note that, appellant was examined before the Tribunal as P.W. 1 and she has admitted during the course of her cross examination that, her husband is working in Air force. Therefore, the Tribunal has observed that she has got free treatment at Air force hospital. Though the appellant contended that because of the head injury, she had head ache and giddiness and she cannot do the household work. But she has failed prove and substantiate the same by leading any evidence before the Tribunal and also by examining the medical officer who treated her. The Tribunal, taking all these relevant factors into consideration, has justified in awarding global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for, nor I find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the same. Even the appellant has not made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.