AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 10th October 2012, passed in MVC No. 1426/2009, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XI, Tumkur, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 72,640/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 10,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 35 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 12:00 P.M., on 22-10-2009, when the appellant was returning to Sira in his Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. KA-05/MB-9957, Near Ajjagondanahalli Circle, Kora, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-07/5877, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained fracture left scapula, fracture left clavicle and contusion chest. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumkur, and after first aid, he was shifted to Mahaveer Nursing Home, where he was in-patient for a period of 15 days and spent substantial sum towards medical and other incidental expenses.
It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he 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. 10,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 10th October, 2012. 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. 72,640/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from 30-05-2012 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.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri. V.B. Siddaramaiah submits that, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges land no compensation is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period. Further, he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal also erred in awarding interest only from the date of commencement of evidence on 30-05-2012 and the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by awarding reasonable compensation.
After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for claimant, it reveals that the Tribunal has after assessing the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P24, has awarded compensation of Rs. 72,640/- with interest at 6% per annum from 30-05-2012, the date on which the evidence commenced.
Occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and sustained fracture of left scapula, fracture of left clavicle and contusion chest as per Wound Certificate at Ex. P4. He was hospitalized from 22-10-2009 and surgery was done on 23-10-2009 and discharged on 27-10-2009. The appellant has examined the Doctor, PW2, who has treated him. He has assess the functional disability of 45% towards left shoulder and 15% towards whole body. The Tribunal has disbelieved the said disability on the basis that, at one stage, the Doctor has deposed that the fractures are united and the nature of fracture was not disclosed. Further, to assess the said disability, no supportive materials are placed. Therefore, in the absence of the relevant documentary evidence, the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 35,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 26,440/- towards Hospital bills, Rs. 10,000/- towards medical charges and Rs. 1,200/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The same, in my view, is just and reasonable and does not call for interference.
Further, regarding the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest only from 30-05-2012, it can be seen that the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding at paragraph 17 of its judgment stating that the issues were framed on 14-10-2010 and claimant made up his mind to adduce his evidence only on 30-05-2012. therefore, there is delay of one and half year. Hence, the claimant is entitled to interest only from the date on which evidence commenced, i.e. 30-05-2012. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call 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.