AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 02/08/2010 passed in MVC No. 8392/2007, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,54,600/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The appellant claims to be aged about 32 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and agriculturist by profession. That at about 7.00 am., on 9.2.2007, while appellant was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA.03.TC.202 and when he came near a Tank leading from V Kote to Bethamangala of Bangarpet Taluk, at that time, the driver of a Tractor/trailer bearing Reg. No. KA. 40.T.3722/3723 came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, appellant fell down and sustained lacerated wound over the posterior aspect of left elbow, contusion wound over the lower part of left chest, swelling deformity an abnormal mobility of left thigh and swelling deformity of left leg and he sustained comminuted fracture of both left femur and tibia. Immediately, he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital where, he took treatment, then he was shifted to Sustruta Nursing Home, Bangalore, where he underwent two surgeries, implants were fixed and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.
It is the further case of the appellant that he spent considerable amount towards medical and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by him as referred above, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 90% to the left lower limb and 30% to the whole body and there is a shortening of left lower limb. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 2,54,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for Insurer.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, appellant was 32 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, agriculturist by profession owning agricultural lands. But the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side and it requires to enhanced reasonably. Further, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 10% to the whole body contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment period, loss of future income and towards loss of amenities.
As against this, learned counsel for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, it does not call for interference.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further it emerges that, the Tribunal after assessing oral and documentary evidence, particularly, the medical bills produced by the appellant, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards pain and sufferings, towards loss of income during treatment period, towards loss of amenities and towards loss of future earnings and therefore, it needs to be modified. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant as referred above, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 20 days, undergone two surgeries, implants were inserted and on the advice of the Doctor, he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment atleast for four months and during the said period, he might have undergone pain and agony and he might have suffered financial loss, as he could not have attended his work regularly. Further, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal has assessed the disability to the whole body at 10% which is on lower side and it needs to be reassessed. The PW 3 - Doctor has deposed that, appellant has suffered disability at 90% to the left lower limb and 30% to the whole body and we accept the same. The said disability is permanent in nature, he has to suffer this disability through out his life and it would affect his happiness, in future life and it would also affect his future earning capacity. Further, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side. Having regard to the age, occupation and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable to the case in hand is ''16'' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal and we accept the same. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings instead of Rs. 35,000/-; Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period instead of Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness due to disability instead of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 2,59,200/- ( Rs. 4,500/- x 122 x 16 x 30/100) instead of Rs. 57,600/-. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 4,87,200/- instead of Rs. 2,54,600/- and the break-up is as follows:
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 02/08/2010 passed in MVC No. 8392/2007, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 4,87,200/- instead of Rs. 2,54,600/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 2,32,600/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,32,600/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,32,600/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of 10 years and renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to the appellant to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
The remaining sum of Rs. 32,600/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant immediately.
Draw the award, accordingly.