Prashanth vs Arun Shen

B. Manohar, J.—The appellant being not satisfied with the compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 28-02-2011 made in MVC No. 846/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puttur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on 15-2-2006, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

On 15-2-2006,while the claimant was proceeding in his scooter, an Ambassador car - bearing Registration No. KA-19/N-8989 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant’s scooter. Due to that, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He has taken treatment in Pragathi Hospital at Puttur and thereafter in Tejaswini Hospital. In the accident, he has sustained sutured wound over the ankle medial aspect of right leg, fracture of fibula and contusion over the right elbow. He filed a claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the owner as well as insurance company of the offending vehicle.

The respondents defended the case by filing written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor and employer of the claimant as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined. However, Insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.R.1.

On the basis of oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the claimant is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the particular limb. Though the claimant produced the salary certificate stating that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 9,000/- p.m., the Tribunal disbelieved that salary certificate on the ground that attendance and salary registers were not produced before the Tribunal. Taking the income as Rs. 4,000/- p.m. disability to an extent of 4%, applying the multiplier 18, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 32,640/- towards future loss of income, Rs. 27,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 36,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 1,800/- each towards attendant charges, loss of earnings and nutritious food. In all, the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,040/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation filed this appeal.

The main contention of the appellant is that though the salary certificate was produced as Ex. P89 before the Tribunal and examined the employer as P.W.3 to prove the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- p.m., which is contrary to law. Further, Rs. 1,800/- each awarded in respect of attendant charges, loss of earning, nutritious food is also very meager and sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, the advocate appearing for the second respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant records.

The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation. Though the claimant produced the salary certificate and examined the employer to show that he was getting salary, the Tribunal disbelieved the contention of the appellant and taken his income as Rs. 4,000/- p.m., which is contrary to law. When the claimant has produced the document and proved the same by leading evidence, the Tribunal disbelieving the said evidence is contrary to law. Though PW.1 and PW.2 were cross-examined by respondent No. 2, nothing contrary to the evidence was elicited from them. Hence, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the income of the claimant is taken as Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Accordingly, taking the income as Rs. 8,000/- p.m., considering the disability to an extent of 4% and applying the multiplier 18, as the claimant was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 69,120/- towards loss of income due to disability as against Rs. 32,640/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges, nutritious food and loss of earning. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 46,480/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 28-2-2011 made in MVC No. 846/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puttur, D.K. is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 46,480/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.