AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 03.10.2013 passed in MVC No. 1713/2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT & CJM, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on account of the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the case are:
"The appellant was aged about 51 years, working as a Mechanic at Telecom Department/BSNL, earning Rs. 29,033/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On an ill fated day, that is, on 17.07.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., on N.H. 75 at Mairakatte of Biliyooru village, Bantwal Taluk, the appellant sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maxi Cab bearing registration No. KA 19/C 8424. Exs. P.5 to P.10 are the documents pertaining to the injuries suffered by the appellant. The appellant has suffered amputation of right middle finger PIP, right ring finger and right little finger with decreased strength of right hand grip, grasp and also undergone one surgery. P.W. 2/Doctor has opined that there is 35% of permanent disability to his right upper limb. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant has taken treatment for a period of three to four months as per the advise of the doctor. He has spent huge amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and medical expenses. He further contends that due to injuries sustained by him, he has suffered mental pain and agony, and unhappiness and discomforts persists through out his life. Therefore, he was constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- against the respondents. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file allowed the claim petition in part in fixing the liability jointly and severally on respondent Nos. 1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented the instant appeal seeking enhancement contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the rate of interest is inadequate."
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent -Insurance Company.
Sri Guruprasad B.R., learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury pain and sufferings and loss of amenities and not awarded any compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The doctor has assessed disability at 35% to the right upper limb and out of which 1/4th that is, 8.75% is the disability to the whole body, which may be rounded off to 9%. The appellant has spent huge amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, he has taken rest and follow up treatment for three months and also undergone one surgery. The appellant has suffered pain and sufferings and has to suffer unhappiness and discomforts throughout his life. The tribunal has not taken into consideration these aspects of the matter while awarding the compensation.
Further, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, as the accident is of the year 2011, the rate of interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. As per the catena of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the rate of interest may be modified and atleast 9% to 10% p.a. interest may be awarded. Therefore, he prays that the claimant may be awarded just and reasonable compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the insurance company inter alia submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record. Considering the age of the appellant, avocation, the year of the accident and nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal does not call for interference.
After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
It is not in dispute that the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. He has suffered mental pain and agony. He has undergone treatment for a period of 2 months and one surgery. The doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 35% to the right upper limb. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the whole body disability shall be calculated at 1/4th of 35%, which comes to 8.75% and the same is rounded off to 9%. He has spent huge sum towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. He was working as a Mechanic in BSNL/telecom department and earning Rs. 21,687/- p.m. as per Ex. P.11. He has taken treatment, bed rest and follow up treatment for a period of 2 months and undergone one surgery. Taking all these factors into consideration, we deem it fit to award Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges to meet the ends of justice.
The tribunal has rightly awarded reasonable compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period and interference is uncalled for.
The Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of only Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness in life. The appellant was aged about 51 years. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident, he has to suffer unhappiness, discomforts and forego amenities throughout his life. He has suffered crush laceration of right hand involving the index middle, ring and little fingers with multiple contused lacerations over back aspect of these fingers and adjacent dorsum of hand along with fracture dislocation of proximal interphalangeal joints of middle and little gingers, are the injuries which makes the appellant to work as he was working earlier. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness to meet the ends of justice. The total compensation payable to appellant comes to Rs. 4,20,000/-.
The learned Counsel has rightly pointed out that the rate of interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and hence, we deem it fit to award 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 03.10.2013 passed in MVC No. 1713/2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT & CJM, Mangalore, is hereby modified.
The appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- as against Rs. 3,15,000/-. The break-up is as follows:
The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The Respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
The entire compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- with proportionate interest at 9% p.a. shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately on deposit by R1-Insurance Company.
Office to draw the award, accordingly.