Shankar Shetty vs Uma Ravi and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19/11/2012, passed in MVC No. 1051/2011, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,800/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till payment as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 52 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Project Engineer (Civil) at New Horizon Group, Bangalore. That on 4.1.2011 at about 9.40 a.m. the appellant was travelling on his bike bearing Reg. No. KA.17.S.9847 to his office work while he was going North to South on 4th cross, at that time, the driver of Tata Innova car bearing Reg. No. KA.03.MN.7776 came from 2nd main road in a rash and negligent manner and hit his bike. Due to which, appellant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and his bike had been fully damaged. Immediately after the accident, driver of the Innova car has shifted the appellant to Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bangalore, where, he took treatment as inpatient for 2 days and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, 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. 1,08,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its payment.

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 appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, appellant was aged about 52 years, Engineer by profession and on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he took treatment as inpatient for two days, spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. He examined the Doctor who was working in Chinmaya Mission Hospital as PW2, who has deposed that appellant suffers from permanent physical disability of left upper limb of 24.48% and at 12.24% to whole body. Further he deposed that, appellant has to undergo Arthrodesis or total writ replacement. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal or awarded reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and in not awarding reasonable interest and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for insurer and learned counsel appearing for owner, inter-alia, contended and sought to substantiate that, the Tribunal, 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, has justified in awarding reasonable compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and therefore, it does not call for interference.

Further, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted that, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and not approaching the Court with clean hands. To substantiate the said submission, he submits that, in fact, the appellant has filed one more claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No. 945/2011 and subsequently, he has withdrawn the same, wherein he has stated different facts and nature of injuries sustained by him and in this petition he has changed his version and stated that he has taken further treatment in the hospital and therefore, the person who has not approached the court with clean hands does not deserves to seek any reliefs at the hands of this court and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

After careful consideration of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle 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?"

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P5-wound certificate are not in dispute. The Tribunal, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has justified in awarding reasonable compensation towards medical expenses, including incidental expenses, towards loss of income during treatment period, towards future medical expenses and towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability and therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for.

However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and what is awarded is inadequate and it needs to be enhanced reasonably. Admittedly, the Doctor who has been examined as PW2, has deposed that, appellant has sustained injuries like tenderness with swelling and deformity of the left wrist, abrasion over the left forearm, abrasion over the right knee, abrasion over the left ankle with swelling and X ray of left wrist reveals fracture of the distal radius and X ray of the left ankle shows no radiological abnormality. Further, he deposed that appellant underwent closed reduction and POP application under general anesthesia on 5.1.2011 and he was discharged on 6.1.2011. Further, he deposed that recently on 27.8.2012 he examined the appellant and opined that appellant has suffered permanent disability of left upper limb of 24.48% and whole body disability of 12.24% and he has to undergo Arthrodesis or total wrist replacement. It is also not in dispute that appellant was aged about 52 years, the disability is permanent in nature and he may require some reasonable amount towards future medical expenses as the Doctor has deposed that he has to undergo arthrodesis or total wrist replacement and discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life. Taking all these factors into consideration and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to award another sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2011. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.

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 19/11/2012, passed in MVC No. 1051/2011, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), stands modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 25,000/- 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.

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

Draw the award, accordingly.

In view of disposal of main matter on merits, the relief sought by the appellant in I.A. No. 1/2015 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A. No. 1/2015 is disposed of as having become infructuous.