AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted for orders, the same is taken for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties. This appeal is by the claimant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 22.4.2010 passed in MVC No. 814/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.
The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident.
The claimant on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement, has presented this appeal.
The brief facts of the case on hand are, appellant was aged about 30 years. He was hale and healthy prior to accident. He was a Carpenter by profession and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He met with an accident on 5.10.2007 at about 11.45 a.m. at railway bridge bus stop Channamarenahalli village due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA05 EK 3570 which came in a high speed and dashed against the appellant, on account of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He has undergone treatment in hospital as inpatient and also undergone a surgery. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and also towards medical expenses. On account of the injuries sustained he was not in a position to do work as he was doing earlier. Taking all these into consideration, he has filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation. The said matter had come up before the tribunal for consideration. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding of fact that due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle the appellant has sustained injury. However, it has observed that as per Ex. P3, the wound certificate, 4th injury is shown as fracture, but the discharge summary does not show 4th injury. Further the progress chart of the inpatient marked at Ex. P36 also does not show the fracture. The operation record in inpatient report marked at Ex. P36 only shows "G.A-Laminetomy, decompression and bone grafting". Ex. P3, P4 and P36 does not show taking of X-ray at the time of treatment and Ex. P38, X-ray taken after lapse of about 2 years do not show any fracture. Hence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered only simple injuries and has awarded a global compensation of Rs. 11,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant at the outset that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing reasonable income of the claimant. He was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and by profession he was a Carpenter and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and he is the only earning member of the family and he is not in a position to do the work as he was doing earlier. He has suffered fracture. As such., the income of the injured/claimant be reassessed and reasonable compensation may be awarded, by modifying the impugned judgment and award.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurer inter alia contended that substantial amount has been awarded by the Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral, documentary and other evidence on record and also by considering the age of the claimant, his avocation and date of the accident. Therefore, interference is not called for.
After careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award the point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that claimant was aged 30 years and is a Carpenter. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He has produced Ex. P3, the wound, certificate, but it does not tally with the inpatient record Ex. P36. As per Ex. P36, it only shows "G.A-Laminetomy, decompression and bone grafting". He has examined the Doctor P.W. 2. On medical examination he has opined that there is a permanent disability to the spine and 17% to the whole body. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration Ex. P3 and P4 coupled with oral evidence of P.W. 1 claimant and also the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 2. The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the pain and agony undergone by the claimant and also the amount spent towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and also the loss of income during laid up period since he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment. He has suffered discomfort and unhappiness. Without considering these facts, it has awarded meager compensation.
Taking all these relevant aspects into consideration, another Rs. 20,000/- is awarded as global compensation with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.4.2010 passed in MVC No. 814/2008 on the file of MACT, Bangalore is hereby modified awarding additional global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization.
The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest, excluding interest for the. period of delay of 444 days in filing the appeal, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
The enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately on deposit by the 2nd respondent-Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.