AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda
As these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. Although these appeals are listed in the orders list, they are heard, admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the ease as pleaded in the claim petition are:
That on 27.08.2006. when the claimant was boarding the bus bearing registration No. TN 29 B 2288 at Bangarpet in the front door by putting his left leg into the foot steps the driver of the said bus moved the bus suddenly in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, he fell down from the bus and back wheels of the said bus ran over his right leg resulting crush injury. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Kolar, seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00.000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,80,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award the claimant has filed MFA 4062/2009 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the insurer has filed MFA No. 1010/2009 seeking reduction of compensation.
As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.
As per wound certificate Ex. P 2 the claimant has sustained crush injury to his right leg and his right leg above knee came to be amputated by way of surgery. Post operatively antibiotics and analgesics was given and an elective removal of bone fragments done and sinus on post mid aspect: curetted and advised to take rest with non-weight bearing and to undergo for follow up treatment. PW 2 Dr. Venkatesh Reddy in his evidence has stated the claimant has suffered 85% disability to right lower limb and 30% to whole body. He has also stated comparing his avocation functional disability is 100%. In the cross examination he has stated that with the help of artificial leg he can do some work. In the instant case the avocation of the claimant as mason is not challenged. As could be seen from the photograph produced along with a memo by the learned Counsel for the claimant, amputation was done to his right leg above knee and he was walking with clutches. Considering he can do some light work the functional disability is taken at 80%.
Considering nature of injuries and duration of treatment Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
As Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant for the said sum there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
Claimant was treated as inpatient for 75 days in R.L. Jalappa Hospital. Kolar. Considering the same Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
Claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and claims to have been earning Rs. 250/-per day by doing mason work. Considering his age, year of accident and profession as mason his income could easily be assessed at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as against Rs. 2,400/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of injuries suggests that he must have been under treatment and rest at least for a period 5 months and therefore, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 1,5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Considering the disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness which the claimant has to undergo for the rest of her life, Rs. 75,000/-is awarded towards lose of amenities as against Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant if functional disability is taken at 80% it would meet the ends of justice. The multiplier applicable to his age group is 17. If so, loss of future income works out to Rs. 6,52,800/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 80% x 12 x 17) and it is awarded as against Rs. 4,60,880/-awarded by the Tribunal.
Considering amputation of right leg above knee it is just and proper to award Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of artificial leg and its replacement from time to time and it is awarded.
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
1)
Pain and suffering
Rs. 1,00,000/-
2)
Medical expenses
Rs. 20,000/-
3)
Incidental expenses
Rs. 25,000/-
4)
Towards loss of income during laid up period
Rs. 20,000/-
5)
Towards loss of amenities
Rs. 75,000/-
6)
Future loss of income
Rs. 6,52,800/-
7)
Cost of artificial leg and Its replacement from time To time
Rs. 50,000/-
Total
Rs. 9,42,800/-
Less compensation awarded by The Tribunal
Rs. 5,80,800/-
Additional compensation
Rs. 3,62,000/-
Accordingly the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 3,62,000/- with interest, but excluding interest for 196 days at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
The insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest, but excluding interest for 196 days within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment from which Rs. 3.00.000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D. in the name of the claimant in any nationalised/scheduled bank or post office for a period of TWELVE years renewable once in three years with an option to withdraw interest periodically. Remaining amount is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant. In view of allowing the appeal filed by the claimant and enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal the appeal filed by the insurer for reduction dots not survive for consideration. Accordingly it is dismissed as devoid of merit.
The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.
No order as to costs.