AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—These appeals are filed by the claimants questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos. 3158 and 3159 of 2005, dated 31-7-2009 by the Fast Track Court No. III and Member Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum and enhancement of compensation is sought for in these appeals. Though matters are listed for orders by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties and also in view of the fact the certified copies of depositions and exhibits having been made available, it is taken up for final hearing.
I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Facts in brief leading to filing of these appeals are as under:
On account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 4-10-2005 claimants contended that they sustained injuries and suffered consequential disability and as such, claiming compensation claim petitions u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed. Insurer on service of notice appeared and filed its statement of objections and averments made in the claim petitions came to be denied. Respondent 1 was placed ex parte and respondent 2 appeared through its Counsel and filed similar objections in both these cases.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal has framed issues for its determination and on evaluation of the evidence both oral and documentary tendered, Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions in part and Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,03,600/- in MVC No. 3158 of 2005 and Rs. 63,000/- in MVC No. 3159 of 2005. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants have filed these appeals seeking for enhancement.
Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the common judgment and award in question, it would indicate that claimants in both the cases had sustained the following injuries as per would certificate-Exs. P. 1 and P. 4 respectively:
This Court has come across in number of claim petitions the Doctor who has been examined in these two cases namely Dr. S.R. Angadi, has been tendering evidence mechanically and assessing the disability contrary to record. Hence, evidence tendered by Dr. S.R. Angadi, required to be looked into with utmost circumspection. In the instant case, he has opined that there is disability of 35% on right lower limb and 40% to left lower limb in MVC No. 3158 of 2005 which is on the higher side. As such, the Tribunal has rightly construed the disability at 15% to the whole body by taking into consideration that claimant had sustained fracture of right and left femur. The compensation awarded towards loss of future earning capacity by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
As per Ex. P. 11, it can be noticed that claimant was inpatient for about 67 days from 4-10-2005 to 11-12-2005. Compensation awarded towards food, nourishment and conveyance is on the lower side as also compensation awarded towards loss of amenities. On account of these injuries, claimant would have been unable to attend the work at least for a period of four months. Tribunal has awarded compensation for three months towards laid up period. Hence, he would entitled for additional one month compensation.
Insofar as M.V.C. No. 3159 of 2005 is concerned, for the amputation of the index ring and middle finger phalanx right hand, doctor has opined that there is disability to an extent of 37% to the right upper limb which is highly excessive. Inasmuch as under Schedule I to the ''Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, at Sl. Nos. 28 and 29, the disability specified for amputation to phalanx or one pharax is 11% and 9% respectively and as such, the disability as assessed by Dr. S.R. Angadi was rightly not accepted by the Tribunal and Tribunal has found that on account of this injury, earning capacity of the claimant would not he reduced and rightly so. However, on account of this injury, claimant would be entitled to additional compensation towards disability as well as loss of certain comforts in life. Claimant would also be entitled to an additional compensation of one month loss of income during laid up period. I am of the considered view that claimant would not have been unable to do his normal work on account of the above referred injury at least for a period of two months. Tribunal has awarded loss of income for one month and as such claimant would be entitled for another additional one month compensation. Thus, in both the cases the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation as under:
For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed:
ORDER
(1) Appeals are hereby allowed in part.
(2) Judgment and award passed by Tribunal in MVC Nos. 3159 and 3158 of 2005, dated 31-7-2009 are hereby modified and an additional compensation of Rs. 23,000/- and Rs. 28,000/- are hereby awarded which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.
(3) Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(4) Since the enhancement of compensation is marginal, same is ordered to be released in favour of the respective claimants.