Nitin vs Udapayya

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The appeal coming for on admission is considered for final disposal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 seeks time to file Vakalat and is permitted to file Vakalat in due course. Notice to respondent No. 3 has been dispensed with vide order dated 14.08.2013.

It is the case of the appellant that on 02.04.2010 he was on his way to attend a festival, on his motorcycle. It transpires that his uncle was also riding a motorcycle and riding along with him. While they were near Halkatti village on Wadi-Yadgir road, a jeep coming from Wadi, had dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant, as a result of which he was thrown off his motorcycle and had suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted to a Hospital in Gulbarga. He was an inpatient between 02.04.2010 and 13.04.2014. The appellant was aged 22 years at the time of accident and was said to be working as a tailor. His income was about Rs. 9,000/- per month. As a result of the injuries suffered, he was not able to work as before and it is in that background the appellant was before the tribunal seeking compensation on the ground that he was permanently disabled to the extent of 14.23%, as assessed by the medical practitioner, to the whole body. The claim was contested. The tribunal proceeded to award compensation after considering the rival contentions and the material on record and has adopted the notional income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- and negating the assessment of the medical practitioner of the disability at 14.23% to the whole body, has restrict it to 12% to the whole body. It is these two aspects that are sought to be questioned.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 3, however, would point out that there was no evidence as regards the income of the appellant and the accident being of the year 2010 and the income adopted is reasonable and cannot be questioned in the absence of any evidence and the disability having been assessed at 14.23% was on the higher side and in the discretion of the tribunal it was been scaled down and there is no illegality in the same and therefore seeks dismissal of the appeal.

In so far as the adoption of the income is concerned, the accident being of the year 2010, this Court takes judicial note of other cases pertaining to the said period where the income of claimants such as the petitioner has been adopted at Rs. 4,500/- and higher. Since, the claimant was said to be a tailor he was certainly earning more than Rs. 4,500/-. Therefore, if the amount of Rs. 4,500/- is adopted there is a marginal increase in the compensation. The disability that is adopted for computing compensation has been reduced to 12% from 14.23% as assessed by the medical practitioner, which was impermissible. The tribunal itself was not competent to determine the percentage of disability and therefore it shall be taken at 14.23%. In so far as the other conventional heads are concerned though the same appear to be on the lower side, it may not warrant interference by this Court, except towards loss of earning during the laid up period. The income of the claimant if taken at Rs. 4,500/- per month, consequently, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 18,555/-.

Therefore, the appeal is allowed in terms as above. The appellant is entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 18,555/- which shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition.