AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajulu
Sri H.S. Lingaraju, accepts name for respondent No. 2.
Though the matter had come up for admission, with the consent of both parties, it is taken for consideration on merits.
The claimant in MVC No. 8348/2007 on the file of IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore, is the appellant in this appeal.
The case of the claimant is, that on 16.10.2007 at about 8.20 p.m. white he was riding motor cycle bearing registration No. KA. 01-EE 7903, the driver of the canter bearing Registration No. KA 05 D 1550, has driven the vehicle rashly negligently and hit the claimant, it resulted in injuries to the claimant For the pain and ageny suffered by the claimant, he seeks for compensation.
The Insurance Company filed objections denying the accident, called upon the claimant to prove the accident, impact, contend that the claim is exaggerated. Further, contend that the liability is strictly in accordance with the policy. So, plead for dismissal of the claim application.
After framing of the issues, PWs. 1 & 2 are examined, Exs. P1 to P14 are marked. The learned member of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 74,700/- with interest at 6% p.a.
The learned advocate for the claimant submits that tooking into nature of injuries on both the limbs including the fractures, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 3% to the whole body is lessor when compared to the impact of the injuries. So, it requires re-assessment. Further, contend that the earning assessed by the learned member of the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. is on the lower side as the accident is of the year 2007. So also contend that the compensation awarded under the other heads also requires interference.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the reasoning of the learned member of the Tribunal.
I have carefully considered the materials, submissions. The accident is admitted. Actionable negligence is not disputed. Having regard to the fact that the accident is of the year 2007, the occupation of the claimant being coolie, the income that is assessed requires interference. So, it is assessed at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. Looking to the disability, disability is assessed at 5% to the whole body as them are fractures also. So, under the head loss of earning capacity it works out to Rs. 36,000/- (5% of Rs. 4,000 = 200 x 12 = 2,400 x 15) as against Rs. 16,200/- (enhanced by Rs. 19,800/-) awarded by the Tribunal.
The claimant is also entitled for compensation in addition to what is already granted by the Tribunal, which are as under:
Conveyance and nourishment
- Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of earning during laid up period
- Rs. 4,000/-
Loss of amenities and future Unhappiness
- Rs. 5,000/-
In all, the claimant is entitled to art additional compensation of Rs. 33,800/- (RS. 19,800 + 5,000 +4,000 + 5,000). It shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till deposit.
Accordingly, The appeal is allowed in part.
Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalat within three weeks.