AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are:
That on 25-3-05, when the claimant was a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-18-J-9800, near Shidle of Mudigere taluk. Chickmagalur district, the vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the MACT, Chickmagalur, seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 99,500/-with interest at 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for enhancement?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, 1 am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.
As per Ex.P.3 - wound certificate, the claimant has sustained the following injuries:
1) Bleeding from ear with vomiting
2) Fracture of left clavicle
Injuries sustained by her are also evident from discharge certificate - Ex.P.6, case sheet - Ex.C.1, C.T.scan -Ex.C2, x-ray - Ex.C.3 and supported by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively.
P.W.2 - Dr. Raja, Neuro Surgeon, KMC Hospital, has stated in his evidence that claimant was admitted to their Hospital on 27-3-05 for treatment of head injury. She had fracture of skull bone with contusion of the brain with leakage of cerebro spinal floied leaf from left ear and fracture of left collar bone. She was tested with investigation, including CT scan and x-rays and treated with medicine and discharged on 14-4-05. She was discharged on 14-4-05. At the time of discharge, she had improved in her conscious level but she had left side facial nerve palsy. She was advised medicine to prevent brain fever for a period of 3 weeks and anti-epileptic medicine for 5 years. She had come for check up 6 times. There was left side hearing deficit due to injury to the 8th cranial nerve due to fracture of Skull bone which according to the doctor is the permanent deficit resulting in 40% neurological functional disability.
Considering the nature of injuries, Rs. .35,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
As Rs. .27,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is as per medical bills produced by the claimant for Rs. 27,488/-, the same is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for enhancement.
Claimant was treated as inpatient for 21 clays in KMC hospital, Manipal and for a day in Sringeri Dhanvantri Charitable Hospital, Sringeri. Considering the same, Rs. . 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
Claimant claims to have been earning Rs. . 4,000/-per month, by working as a D.T.P. operator and has produced service certificate - Ex.P.55. Her income is assessed at Rs. 4,000/ per month as against Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Period of treatment is taken as four months as rightly held by the Tribunal. Therefore, a sum of Rs. . 16,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. . 12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Except the oral evidence of the claimant that she cannot continue to discharge her duty, the same is not established either by producing document or examining her employer. Therefore, it has to be presumed that she has continued her employment even after sustaining injuries and awarding compensation towards loss of future earning does not arise. Nevertheless, she has to bear with 40% loss of hearing capacity in her left ear and certain amount of discomfort and unhappiness in her future life. Considering the same, Rs. . 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is on the lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by another Rs. . 15,000/- and I award Rs. . 30,000/- under this head.
It is stated, claimant has sustained head injury and she has risk of getting epileptic fits attack and she was advised medicine to prevent brain fever for a period of 3 weeks and anti-epileptic medicine for 5 years. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
1) Pain and suffering Rs. 35,000/- 2) Medical expenses Rs. 27,500/- 3) Incidental expenses Rs. 10.000/- 4) Towards loss of income during laid up period Rs. 16.000/- 5) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 30.000/ 6) Future medial expenses Rs. 10.000/- Total Rs. 1,28,5007-
Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,28,500/- as against Rs. 99.500/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 29,000/- from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D. in any nationalized or scheduled Bank in the name of the claimant for a period of 6 years and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in her favour.
No order as to costs.