AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.—This appeal is directed Appeal partly allowed against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, [the �Tribunal�, for short] in MVC No. 709/ 2009.
On the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 11-4-2009, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future income of the appellant despite cogent evidence placed on record by the appellant to establish the fact that the appellant has sustained physical disability which resulted in functional disability. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the different heads is meagre and the same requires to be suitably enhanced in the circumstances of the case.
Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent would justify the impugned judgment and order.
Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is manifest that the appellant was working as a Teacher and was drawing salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The appellant in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accidental injuries sustained by him had an impact on his regular work, he is unable to stand for a long time and walk long a distance and cannot climb the steps. The malunited fracture had caused discomfort and inconvenience which he has to face for the rest of his life. The Tribunal having appreciated the evidence, held that in the absence of assessment of functional disability made by the doctor, no compensation can be awarded as the physical disability by itself would not result in economical loss to the appellant. The Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of �Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar�, reported in 2011 ACJ 1, denied the compensation towards loss of future income, which appears to be in conformity with the judgment of the Apex Court. However, the compensation awarded towards the loss of amenities is on a lower side. Having regard to the occupation of the appellant who is a Teacher, required to stand for long hours and in view of the fact that he has to walk for a long distance to his work place, it would be appropriate to enhance the compensation towards loss of amenities. I deem it proper, considering the tribulations, discomfort, inconvenience which are required to be suffered by the appellant for the rest of his life, it would be just and reasonable to enhance the compensation under this head to Rs. 40,000/-.
It is also significant to note that the appellant has undergone surgery to set right the fracture, orthopaedic implants are fixed which necessarily requires future surgery to remove the same. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- would be just and reasonable towards future medical expenses. Accordingly, the same is awarded under the head of future medical expenses.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:
SI. No.
Particulars
Amount [in Rs.]
1.
Pain and sufferings
25,000
2.
Medical expenses hospitalization charges
60,000
3.
Incidental charges
3,000
4.
Loss of amenities
40,000
5.
Future medical expenses
20,000
Total
1,48,000
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 1,48,000/- as against Rs. 1,08,000/-. The awarded amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization.
In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.