AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda
As these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and they are considered. Although these appeals are listed in the orders list, they are heard, admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are 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 as pleaded in the claim petition are:
That on 11.04.2005, when the claimant was proceeding towards Dharmasthala in Maruthi Van bearing registration No. KA 16/M 1233 near Siddapura on Karkala road due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver it dashed against a tree standing in front of petrol bunk of Bajagoli village, Karkala Taluk as a result, he sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Shimoga seeking compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award the claimant has filed MFA 8318/2009 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the insurer has filed MFA No. 5247/2009 seeking reduction 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 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and there is no scope for interference.
As per wound certificate Ex. P6 and discharge summary Ex. P7, the claimant has sustained multiple lacerations involving the upper and lower lid margins and lids torn into multiple pieces exposing the eyeball, lateral canthotomy. X-ray of cervical spine reveal loss of cervical lordosis and he was advised for review for suture removal. Injuries sustained by him are also supported from the evidence of claimant examined as PW1. He has not examined the doctor regarding disability.
Considering nature of injuries and duration of treatment Rs. 80,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is very much on the higher side and it is required to be reduced by Rs. 30,000/- and I award Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
As Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant for the said sum there is no scope for interference under this head.
Claimant was treated as inpatient for 8 days in Manipal Hospital. Considering the same Rs. 6,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and claims to have been earning Rs. 8,000 per month by running a Welding Shop. Considering his age, year of accident and profession as Welder his income could easily be assessed at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as against Rs. 3,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of injuries suggests that he must have been under treatment and rest at least for a period 4 months and therefore, a sum of Rs. 16,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Considering the disfigurement to his face and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness which the claimant has to undergo for the rest of his life, Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards disfigurement.
As the claimant has not examined the doctor regarding disability no compensation could be awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of future income.
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
1)
Pain and suffering
Rs. 50,000/-
2)
Medical expenses
Rs. 20,000/-
3)
Incidental expenses
Rs. 6,000/-
4)
Towards loss of income during laid up period
Rs. 16,000/-
5)
Towards disfigurement
Rs. 15,000/-
Total
Rs. 1,07,000/-
Less compensation awarded by The Tribunal
Rs. 1,13,000/-
Difference of compensation Comes to
Rs. 6,000/-
As the difference of compensation comes to less than Rs. 10,000/- there is no scope for interference.
Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed as devoid of merit. The amount, if any, deposited by the insurer in their appeal is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.
No order as to costs.