S. Nagesh vs Paul Stalin V.A. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—1. This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 17/01/2013, passed in MVC No. 2290/2011, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (SCCH-8), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 61,880/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident, directing the first respondent, owner to indemnify the same.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 42 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Car driver of Yathra Holidays Private Limited and drawing the salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and also batha of Rs. 7,000/- per month. That on 12.3.2011 at about 4.30 a.m. one Mr. Manikantan being the driver of a Tata Indica car bearing Reg. No. KA.03.C2844 and he drove the same on Sai Mandir road in a direction from west to east with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and when it came in front of Hop Corns near 4th cross road, due to over speed, he lost control over his car and went on the right side of the road and hit against the road side tree. Due to which, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Bangalore, for treatment. After first aid, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for treatment, then to Mahaveer Jain Hospital and thereafter, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment."

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 61,880/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization directing the first respondent, owner to indemnify the award amount.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi, appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and suffering, towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and in not awarding any amount towards disability and the same is liable to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he has submitted that, appellant has examined the Doctor, who after clinical examination has assessed the disability at 50% and 1/4th of which comes to 12.5% and the same would be the whole body disability. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life, it would affect his earning capacity and now he is not in a position to do his work as he was a driver cum coolie by profession. Further he submits that the income and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be modified reasonably as the accident is of the year 2011 in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for insurer, inter- alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment taken by him and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After careful consideration of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and after perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

In the accident, appellant has sustained injuries, viz., abrasion over the left knee, tenderness over the neck at C4, C5 level (reduced disc space C3, 4, C5 and C6), tenderness over the right arm and weakness and milk degenerative cervical spondylosis with paraspinal muscular spasm and anterior subluxation of C4 over C5 vertebra, as per Ex. P7-wound certificate and he has taken treatment as inpatient for 03 days and during the said period, he might have undergone lot of pain and agony, he might have spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses, and as per the advise of the Doctor he might have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment. Further, it is the case of the appellant that, on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. To prove the same, he has examined the Doctor, who after clinical examination has assessed the disability at 50% to the particularly limb and 1/4th of which comes 12.5% and therefore, the Tribunal has justified in assessing the permanent disability a 10% to the whole body. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life. Since the accident has occurred in the year 2011 and appellant was a driver cum coolie by profession, we re-assess his income at Rs. 5,500/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of Rs. 4,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. Taking all these factors into consideration, we deem it fit to award another sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization since the accident is of the year 2011 in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has justified in issuing a direction to the respondent No1. to indemnify the award amount. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for issuing the said direction is well considered and well reasoned one and therefore, it does not call for interference.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 17/01/2013, passed in MVC No. 2290/2011, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (SCCH-8), stands modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The first respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

Immediately on such deposit by the first respondent, the enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant.

Draw the award, accordingly.