AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel appearing on both sides, it is heard finally. The claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award in MVC No. 7510/2009 dated 26.11.2010 by the MACT, Bangalore.
The brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2009 at about 7.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding in a lorry bearing No. KA.01.C.9513 as a cleaner from Bangalore towards Hassan, which was driven by one Rafeek and when he was proceeding near Thitanahalli gate, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing No. KA.13.F.1790 came in a high speed and dashed against the lorry. As a result of the impact, the driver of the lorry died on the spot and appellant sustained injuries. Assailing the same, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation on various heads.
The claim petition was contested by the respondent before the Tribunal. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6%: p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the realisation. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimant was in appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record as well as the original records.
The main reason for the tribunal to award a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is on account of the fact that the claimant had given a complaint before the police on 10.09.2009 i.e., on the date of the accident when he was admitted to Adichunchanagiri hospital which recorded that his left thumb and left ankle were injured. The tribunal has taken that as the injury sustained and therefore has come to the conclusion that the injuries for which the compensation has been claimed i.e., fracture of rib as well as the left ankle are not the injuries which were sustained in the accident. Under these circumstances, global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded. However, the claimant let in evidence as PW1 and that of Dr. B. Ramesh as PW2. He produced 7 documents including wound certificate which is at Ex. P5; recent examination report at Ex. P6 and X-ray is at Ex. P7. On consideration of the said evidence particularly of the doctor it becomes clear that the claimant had infact sustained fracture to the left ankle as well as fracture to the rib. The statement given by the claimant at Adichunchangiri hospital is not clearly contradicted in the sense that the left ankle was indeed fractured. Moreover that statement though recorded by the police corroborates with the factum of accident that occurred on 10.09.2009 as the claimant himself is the complainant. In that view of the matter, the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the relevant heads.
Thus, in the instant, compensation is reassessed on the various heads. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/; towards loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/-. As the claimant earned his livelihood as a cleaner and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary and the whole body disability having regard to the nature of the injury being assessed at 7%, compensation on the head of loss of future earning capacity is Rs. 57,120/- (7% of Rs. 4,000 x 12 x 17). Thus, the total compensation is Rs. 1,02,120/- on the following heads;
As there is no evidence with regard to the medical and other expenses incurred by the claimant, therefore, no amount can be awarded on that head. The enhanced aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms without any other as to costs.