AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - Though the appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, is heard finally and disposed by this order.
Claimant in MVC No. 1641/2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short �MACT�), dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, has presented this appeal for higher compensation.
In the accident that occurred on 08-10-2008 involving a motor vehicle, appellant suffered fracture of Type II of both bones of right leg and other simple injuries. Medical intervention by a surgeon, interlocking nail and wound debridement, though carried out, it was noticed that there was wasting of muscles of right lower limb compared to opposite limb by 1.5 cm, as testfied by P.W.2/ orthopedic surgeon of Victoria Hospital, who opined that appellant suffered disability of 38% to the right lower limb equivalent to 18% to the whole body. So also, P.W.3, medical records technician of Vaidehi hospital spoke of medical record/Ex.P.89 which included discharge summary.
In the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, MACT, by the judgment and award impugned, awarded following compensation:
Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 51,100/-
Loss of earning during laid up period Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of future earning Rs. 77,760/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
Future medical expenses Rs. 2,28,860/-
TOTAL Rs. 2,28,860/-
with interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 2,18,860/-, since future medical expenses of Rs. 10,000/- did not qualify for interest.
There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for appellant/injured that MACT fell in error in assuming the income of an unskilled worker during the year 2008 as Rs. 3,000/-, while in Lok Adalat, it is recognised that an unskilled worker would earn at least Rs. 4,500/- per month during the year 2008.
The MACT, having regard to the testimony of P.W.2 not the orthopedic surgeon who treated the appellant, but issued the disability certificate on clinical examination, declined to accept as credible evidence the disability at 18% to the whole body and on the basis of the medical record, concluded that the appellant aged 19 as on the date of accident and injuries had suffered 12% whole body disability.
In the circumstances, reckoning 12% as whole body disability by the MACT cannot be found fault with. Reckoning Rs. 4,500/-as monthly income of the injured 12% as whole body disability, appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,16,640/- ( Rs. 540 x 12 x 18) as against Rs. 77,760/- awarded by the MACT towards loss of future earning and therefore, appellant is entitled to balance of Rs. 38,880/-.
Appellant was required to be off duty for a period of 5 months, in the light of breakage of both bones of right leg and reckoning Rs. 4,500/- as monthly income, appellant is entitled to Rs. 22,500/- towards loss of earning during laid up period as against Rs. 15,000/-and therefore, entitled to balance of Rs. 7,500/-.
Both the fractured bones of right leg were fixed with inter locking nails and require to be removed by surgical intervention and if that is so, Rs. 10,000/- is grossly insufficient for the same as awarded by the MACT. It is just and proper to award Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses and deducting Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the MACT, appellant is entitled to additional sum of Rs. 10,000/-.
In the circumstances, appellant is entitled to Rs. 56,380/- with interest at 6% per annum in addition to what is awarded by the MACT.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the appellant to Rs. 56,380/-with interest at 6% per annum in addition to what is awarded by the MACT and in all other respects, remains unaltered.