Ramachandra vs The D.G.M., BMTC

Aravind Kumar, J.—This is a claimant's appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 2639/2008 dated 03.06.2009 by the MACT, Bangalore and enhancement is sought for in this appeal.

I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Perused the Judgment and award in question and also the records secured from the Tribunal.

Facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

On account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.02.2008 claimant contended that he sustained grievous injuries and consequently suffered disability Hence, claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed. The insurer on service of notice appeared and filed its statement of objections and averments made in the claim petition came to be denied.

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 petition in part by awarding a total compensation of Rs. 76,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, claimant has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement.

It is the contention of Sri R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for claimant that tribunal committed a serious error in not considering the salary certificate Exhibit P-8 relating to the claimant which reflected that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. He would further contend that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is on the lower side and as such he prays for enhancement of compensation. Per contra, Sri M.U. Poonacha, learned counsel appearing for second respondent-insurer would support the Judgment and award passed by the tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

The accident in question, issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and same being in force as on the date of accident are undisputed facts and as such they are not delved upon in this appeal as it would be repetition of facts.

Perusal of the records would indicate that claimant had suffered right temporo parietal SDH with mid line shift and diffuse cerebral oedema as per Exhibit P-5 wound certificate. This injury is also reflected in the discharge summary Exhibit P-6. Immediately after the, accident claimant was treated at Victoria Hospital and later was treated at NIMHANS from 01.02.2008 to 07.02.2008 as reflected in discharge summary Exhibit P-6. As per discharge summary claimant was treated at Victoria Hospital from 07.02.2008 to 22.02.2008. The doctor PW-2 has opined that claimant has got permanent disability of 52% due to neurological problem. The evidence of PW-2 would clearly indicate that disability of 52% has been assessed on the basis that claimant has left Homonymous Hemianopia and as such he is suffering from loss of memory. Based on the said evidence the tribunal has assessed the compensation payable under four heads which is as follows:

In order to prove his avocation claimant has stated that at the undisputed point of time he was working as a senior and experience Barber at M/s. Trim N Shapes, Men Saloon at Brigade Road and drawing salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The author of the said document was not examined. However, that by itself would not be a ground to disbelieve his profession. Hence, this court is of the considered view that income of claimant can be construed at Rs. 4,500/- per month at the time he suffered disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained namely head injury and on account of the said injury the doctor having assessed his permanent disability to be at 52%, this court is of the considered view that whole body disability suffered by the claimant can be construed at 15% and loss of future income can be accordingly computed. On the same basis loss of income during laid up period can also be arrived at which would be three months since he would, have been without any avocation atleast for this period namely three months.

The medical records namely discharge summary, C.T. Scan report, O.P. record, Clinical Examination report and Opthomologist report i.e., Exhibit P-6, P-7, P-55, P-56 and P-57 would clearly indicate that claimant has undergone pain and suffering consistently for a period of about 25 days namely till he was discharged and even thereafter when he was under continuous treatment. As such this court is of the considered view that claimant is entitled for compensation as recomputed herein below:

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is hereby allowed in part.

Judgment and award dated 03.06.2009 passed in MVC No. 2639/2008 by tribunal is hereby modified and an additional compensation of Rs. 1,55,900/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

Out of the said additional compensation awarded 50% with proportionate interest shall be deposited in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of claimant's choice for a period of three years and claimant would be entitled to draw periodical interest.

Balance 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be paid to claimant by the tribunal on proper identification.

Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Registry to retransmit the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

No costs.