Ramesh Koll vs Rajni and Others

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

Heard finally with consent.

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, is against the award dated 18-4-2011 passed in Claim Case No. 81/2008.

In brief, the original claimant, Ramesh had suffered injuries in the road motor accident caused by Santro Car No. MP-09-CB-5510 on 24-12-2007, therefore, he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record had reached to the conclusion that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal further found the Insurance Co. liable to pay the compensation amount. In respect of the injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the claimant had suffered 100% permanent disability. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/- per month and had reached to the conclusion that at the time of accident the claimant was aged between 51 to 55 years, therefore, it applied the multiplier of 11. Thus, the Tribunal calculated the loss of income to the tune of Rs. 3,96,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering as also a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the head of actual medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 8,21,000/- along with, interest @6% per annum from the date of the application.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the appellant is entitled for the enhancement of the said amount.

Learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. has pointed out that in the meanwhile the original claimants have died and the L.Rs. have been brought on record, therefore, the L.Rs. are entitled to enhancement only under the head of loss of estate and that the adequate amount has been awarded under the other heads.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Tribunal has not committed any error in calculating the income of the original claimant and the multiplier, which has been adopted by the Tribunal, is also just and proper. However, the Tribunal has not awarded adequate amount under the head of attendant charges, special diet and transportation charges. Considering the nature of injuries, which the claimant had suffered as also taking note of the fact the extent of treatment, which was given to him, I am of the opinion that the amount, which has been awarded under the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges is on the lower side and the appellants are entitled to a further sum of Rs. 60,000/- under these heads. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The enhanced amount will bear interest @ 7% from the date of the application.