Sangamesh vs K.T. Geetha and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this appeal is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties the same is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 15th October 2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 2059/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short) seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization under different heads on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. The claimant has presented this appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires modification.

The brief facts of the case on hand are that, the appellant was aged about 42 years and prior to the accident he was hale and healthy. The appellant contended that, on 16.09.2005 at about 4.30 a.m. when he was traveling in lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19-1144 along with 65 bags of Potata bags to go to Bangalore from Channarayapatna and when the said lorry came near Machohalli at Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk, a Gas Tanker bearing Registration No. KA-21/B-2588 was wrongly parked on the road not showing any signal with regard to its parking either by way of materials or by way of any light and a common man was not in a position to identify the parking of the vehicle on the road and the driver of the lorry has taken the vehicle turn to move the vehicle on the road but the said Gas Tanker was parked in haphazard manner without following the Rules and Regulations, the Driver of the lorry could not controlled the vehicle and dashed against the said Gas Tanker on its back side. Due to the impact the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his left side arm and right side chest and other parts of the body. The left arm of the appellant has been amputated and he also sustained fracture of 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th ribs. Immediately, he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter to St. Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient for more than 20 days and spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. On account of the amputation of left arm above the elbow he is not in a position to do agricultural work and milk vending business. He has become permanently disabled and suffered mental pain and agony and during the treatment period the Doctor has advised to take bed rest and for follow-up treatment through out his life. The appellant has to spend considerable amount towards future medical expenses for fixing artificial limb. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident against the respondents. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, taking the age, avocation of the appellant, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the appellant has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

The submission of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The accident occurred on 16.09.2005 and at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 42 years, an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the appellant may be re-assessed reasonably. He further submitted that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he undergone treatment as inpatient for a period of 20 days and also undergone one surgery for amputation of left arm above the elbow and the Tribunal has assessed disability at 20% as against 30% to the whole body. In the light of the decisions of Apex Court and this Court, amputation of left arm above elbow in respect of permanent disability to whole body may be reassessed between 50% and 60% and award reasonable compensation under different heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal.

As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent - Insurer Sri. A.K. Bhat inter alia, sought to substantiate that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record and in the light of the evidence of Doctor, he submitted that quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and the same may be considered in accordance with law in the light of the catena of judgments of Apex Court and this Court, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and 2nd respondent - Insurer and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

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

Occurrence of the accident and the resultant grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 42 years and doing agriculture and milk vending business and the accident occurred on 16.09.2005. Considering the age, avocation and the year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- per month. On account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, he undergone treatment for a period of 20 days in the Hospital as inpatient and also undergone one surgery and he might have spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The Doctor on clinical and radiological examination has assessed 90% permanent disability to left upper limb and 30% to the whole body.

After careful consideration of the evidence of Doctor, what emerges is that the appellant had undergone surgery for amputation of left arm above the elbow and in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court and this Court, we deem fit to re-assess the permanent disability at 50% to the whole body instead of 30% as assessed by the Doctor, to meet the ends of justice.

Further, with respect to pain and agony suffered by the appellant, we presume that he might have taken bed rest atleast for a period of six months and has to suffer discomfort, unhappiness through out his life because of the permanent disability which he has to endure through out his life. Therefore, we deem fit to award reasonable compensation towards future income on account of permanent disability sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. As the appellant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 14. Therefore, the same requires enhancement towards future medical expenses including fixation of artificial limb.

Taking all these aspects into consideration, and after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as stated supra, we deem fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period as against Rs. 6,000/- at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. for a period of six months, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 12 x 50/100 x 14) towards loss of future earnings as against Rs. 1,08,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses including incidental expenses.

The Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 7,10,000/- as against Rs. 2,37,000/- under different heads, the break-up is as hereunder:

There would be enhancement of Rs. 4,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th October 2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 2059/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Hassan is hereby modified awarding a sum of Rs. 4,73,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,73,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and award.

Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,73,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank or Grameena Bank, for a period of ten years and renewable for another ten years and he is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.

Remaining amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately on deposit by the 2nd respondent - Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.

In view of the disposal of the appeal, the relief sought for in I.A. No. 1/2015 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A. No. 1/2015 stands disposed as having become infructuous.