Smt. Gowaramma vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 1st April 2013, passed in MVC No. 614/2012, by the 14th Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-10), (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against her claim for Rs. 4,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 45 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 6:00 P.M., on 28-03-2010, when the appellant along with her cousin daughter was pedestrian walking slowly and cautiously on the left side of the Mysore Road, near Ashwini Bar Opposite, while they were crossing the road in the direction of South to North, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-02/G-982, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained severe injuries over her left femur and other parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Hi-Tech Hospital, Mysore Road, Bangalore by the public for treatment and then she was shifted to Sumathi Hospital on 30-03-2010, where she was treated as in-patient. X-ray revealed that the appellant sustained fracture of neck of left femur, abrasion injury over left elbow joint and abrasion over left forehead.

It is her further case that, on account of the accident, she sustained injuries stated above and for the treatment of the said injuries, she has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, she has to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- against the owner of the Mahindra Bolero Jeep. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st April, 2013. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Shri. K.C. Shantha Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards injury pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness is very meager when compared to the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident and the disability suffered by her and hence, reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly. Further, he specifically submitted that the appellant was aged about 45 years, at the time of accident and the Doctor has assessed 45% functional disability in respect of lower limb and 15% towards whole body, but the Tribunal has re-assed the same to only 10%. Therefore, he submits that permanent whole body disability may be re-assessed and the compensation under the said head may be redetermined, in the interest of justice and equity.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for appellant and after going through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, it reveals that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained fracture of neck of left femur, abrasion injury over left elbow joint and abrasion over left forehead and she took treatment in two Hospitals. It is further not disputed that the appellant was working in Garment factory, earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. But, she has not produced any relevant documentary proof to establish the said income nor the salary slip issued by the concerned authority. Inspite of that, the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month and awarded compensation towards loss of income during treatment period and loss of future income. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. Further, considering the nature of injuries, viz. one fracture and other abrasions, I am of the view that the Tribunal is justified in re-assessing the whole body disability at 10% and the same is accepted. Considering the number of days she was in-patient in the Hospitals and the nature of treatment undergone, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards injury, pain and sufferings, medical expenses including conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges and also loss of amenities discomfort and unhappiness is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Further, the Tribunal is also justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment period and hence, interference in the same is also not called for.

Having regard to the totality of the case on hand, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, functional and whole body disability, etc. has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for nor the appellant has made out a good case for interference. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.