AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ggvindarajulu, J.—Claimant in MVC 238/2003 on the file of First. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bangalore Rural is the Appellant in this appeal.
Case of the claimant-Appellant is that on 13.12.2002 he was standing near main gate of MVR gases. The said company is situated on Sarjapur-Attibele road, then the lorry with empty gas cylinders bearing registration No.KA-19/B-6474 while entering into the main gate of MVR Gases, the Toyota Qualis bearing registration No. KA-04/Z-2174 has dashed against it, resulted in qualis hitting the Petitioner. It resulted in injuries. For the pain, sufferings and agony Petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 9,45,000/- as compensation.
Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 has filed objections, call upon the Petitioner to prove the impact. Further contend that the claim is exaggerated and that if the driver of Qualis was not at fault, the company is not liable. Further, plead that there is a factor of contributory negligence. So pray for dismissal of the application.
Respondent No. 3 contends that there is no mistake on the driver of the Qualis, only on humanitarian grounds the injured was shifted to hospital by spending nearly 15,000/- for treatment. Respondent No. 4 the United India Insurance Company has also filed a similar objections as that of Respondent No. 2.
On the basis of the pleadings issues are framed. Claimant is examined as PW-1. PW-2 examined, is the doctor who has certified about the disability of the claimant. PW-1 in the course of the evidence contend that he was working as a mason and drawing a monthly wage of Rs. 9,000/-. He can not attend for the work from the date of the accident. He has two sons and one daughter. He is the earning member of the family. In cross examination he has not produced documentary evidence in regard to earning of Rs. 9,000/-is claimed. Spending of Rs. 38,000/- towards medical expenses is also round. PW-2 Dr. C.R. Krishnaram states that he has issued the wound certificate, patient was in the Neurosurgery ward from 13.12.2002 to 17.01.2003. Further assesses the permanent disability of the left chest at 30%, 10% of the whole body, permanent disability of the brain 30%, assesses the total permanent disability of the body at 20%. The cross examination is that he is not a competent, person to assess the permanent disability.
Learned member of the Tribunal while appreciating the evidence has awarded the following amounts.
Medical treatment &Incedent expenses
Rs. 1,00,000.00
Injury, Pain & suffering Loss of comfort, happiness
Rs. 25,000.00
Amenities in life etc.,
Rs. 25,000.00
Loss of income during the Period of hospitalization & Treatment
Rs. 15,000.00
Total
Rs. 1,65,000.00
Learned advocate for the claimant-Appellant submits that there is positive evidence in regard to the impact of the accident. Doctor has certified that there is a disability to an extent of 20% to the whole body. The accident is of 2002. Though the claimant has not produced documents to support his claim of earning at Rs. 9,000/-, injured being a mason the compensation awarded under different heads is quite meager. So pray for enhancing the compensation.
Learned advocate for the insurance company submits that the evidence of the doctor is self serving. The evidence of the claimant''s earning, occupation is not supported with any documents, so the evidence is rightly rejected by the learned member of the Tribunal. So pray for dismissal of the appeal.
Material placed in the facts of the case would probablise that accident is not disputed, finding on actionable negligence recorded by the learned Trial Judge directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation is not disputed. Quantum alone is urged.
As narrated supra, occupation of the claimant is that he was a mason, he has positively stated that he has 3 children including the one who has reached the age of marriage. Though the claimant has contended, his age is between 45 to 50 years, PW-2 in the course of his evidence has given the age of the injured as 50 years. A pedestrian on account of the accident was inpatient from 13.12.2002 to 17.01.2003, the bills produced would probabilise nearly Rs. 87,000/- is spent for medicine. There is collapse of the left chest as soon as the accident. Taking note of these features, Court is of the considered opinion the assessment of the earning capacity by the learned member of the Tribunal is appropriate. The Tribunal failed to note the disability assessed by the doctor, being supported with the treatment taken by the claimant. So the disability assessed by the doctor at 20% is accepted, for laid up period, the treatment period is assessed at 5 months, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. Under the head of loss of earning capacity (20% of Rs. 3000/- = Rs. 600/-) Rs. 600 � 12 = 7,200/- � 9 (multiplier) according to the age of the claimant as he is 60 years as on the date of accident. So it works out to Rs. 64,800/-. A sum of Rs. 90,000/- is awarded for the medicines. Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards food, attendant expenditure, diet, travelling. So the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,94,800/- The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/-, the claimant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 29,800/- as enhanced compensation. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till deposit, 70% of the enhanced compensation be deposited in any nationalised bank initially for a period of 4 years authorising the Petitioner to draw interest at an interval of 3 months.
Appeal is allowed accordingly.