AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Admit.
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24.11.2003 passed in MVC No. 560/95, on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ and Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH No. 17). (for short ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant claims to be aged about 21 years at the time of accident and agriculturist-cum-peerless agent, earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- p.m. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 17.5.1994, at about 8.00 a.m. when the appellant was travelling in a milk van bearing No. CRT 7868 with vegetable bag along with agricultural implements from Bangalore to Mysore, at that time, a lorry bearing No. CAM 3168 came from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van in which the appellant was travelling. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, where he was treated as in-patient for five days and later he was shifted to K.T.S. Orthopaedic Clinic for further treatment and was admitted as in-patient for about a month and underwent two surgeries. The doctor has assessed 20% disability to whole body. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act. seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the insurers and the owners of the two offending vehicles. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 24.11.2003. The Tribunal, in turn, after assessing oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs. 84,560/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Counsel for Insurer for considerable length of time.
After careful perusal of the judgment and award and after evaluation of the original records available on file, what emerges is that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and it does not call for interference.
However the Tribunal has awarded lessor compensation towards pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges loss of future earning, loss of earning during treatment period and future medical expenses and not. awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, disability and unhappiness. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 21 years as on the date of accident and was an agriculturist and peerless agent. In the accident he sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. Due to that he took treatment for five days in Victoria Hospital and later took further treatment in K.T.S. Orthopaedic Clinic as in-patient for a period of one month and underwent two surgeries. The doctor has assessed 20% disability to whole body. During the treatment period, he would have undergone pain and agony. On account of the injuries sustained, he is not in a position to do his work effectively as he was doing earlier. During the treatment period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. He requires one more surgery for removal of implants and incidental expenses. Taking into consideration all these factors we deem it proper to award Rs. 30,000/- towards ''pain and sufferings'' as against Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges'' as against Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 4,000/- towards ''loss of earning during treatment period'' as against Rs. 3,000/-. Rs. 10,000/- towards ''loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness'' and Rs. 10,000/- towards ''future medical expenses''.
Further, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 34,560/- towards ''loss of future income. The income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,800/- p.m. is on the lower side. The accident occurred in the year 1994. Having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to meet the ends of justice. The disability assessed by the doctor at 20% to whole body is accepted. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the proper multiplier is 18'' and therefore, we re-determine compensation at Rs. 86,400/- (i.e. Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 18 x 20/100) towards ''loss of future income'' as against Rs. 34,560/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 24.11.2003 passed in MVC No. 560/95, on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ and Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH No. 17). is hereby modified by awarding total compensation of Rs. 1,65,400/- as against Rs. 84,560/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,840/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation (excluding the delayed period of 592 days).
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest (excluding the interest for the delayed period of 592 days) within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,840/- 50% with proportionate interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of five years renewable by five years, with permission to him to withdraw the accrued interest periodically.
The remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately on deposit by the Insurance Company.
Office is directed to draw the award accordingly.
Sri S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned Counsel is permitted to file vakalat for the 2nd respondent-Insurer within four weeks.