Subbareddy vs Narayanaswamy

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimant is that on 13.03.2008, at about 7.30 p.m., when he was waiting for a bus near Nayanahalli Gate, a Hero Honda bike bearing registration No. KA-40-K-3284, came in a high speed and dashed against him. The claimant sustained severe injuries and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Chintamani and thereafter to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. He underwent operation for internal fixation and after discharge, he was under regular follow-up treatment in the hospital. Hence, he filed the instant claim petition under Section- 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,48,800/- along with interest and held the insurer liable to satisfy the award. Seeking enhancement, the claimant has filed this appeal.

The claimant is said to be an agriculturist. The accident occurred on 13.03.2008. The Tribunal held his income at Rs. 3000/- per month. We are of the considered view that the same is inappropriate. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, , we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to hold his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Doctor who has examined the claimant has stated that there were fractures of right tibia, right libia and right patella with rupture and laceration wound etc. Therefore, he assessed the disability to the right upper leg at 35% and 14% to the whole-body. On considering the evidence of the Doctor and keeping in mind that the claimant was an agriculturist by profession, the disability held against the claimant at 14% to the whole-body is inappropriate. He was an agriculturist by profession and the injuries sustained by him would necessarily affect his functional disability. Therefore, based on the evidence of the doctor, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to hold the disability at 30% to the whole-body. He was aged 38 years and hence the multiplier applicable would be ''15''. Hence, the loss of income due to disability is worked out as follows:

"Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 15 x 30%= Rs. 2,70,000/-"

In view of the injury sustained, he would be disabled for atleast 6 months. Hence Rs. 30,000/-(Rs. 5,000/-x6) is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period. For the injuries sustained, the compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The compensation towards loss of amenities is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 25,000/-. In addition, Rs. 22,800/- awarded towards hospital charges and Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, food and nourishment, for the extended period of treatment that he underwent in the hospital, is inadequate. We award an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards hospitalization charges, conveyance, nourishment, etc. Hence, the compensation now awarded is as follows:--

Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 3,09,000/- (Rs. 4,57,800/- less Rs. 1,48,800/-) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the realisation and shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that they have filed a review petition against the impugned award herein and it is yet to be disposed off. That the review petition has been filed on the ground that a fraud has been committed and therefore the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award.

On hearing the learned counsel for the insurer, we are of the considered view that the same cannot constitute a reason to adjourn this matter until the disposal of the review petition. Even assuming that the review petition is to be allowed, the same could only lead to a situation where the insurer would not liable to satisfy the award. In that event also the extent of compensation would have to be determined which has been done in the instant appeal. Therefore, allowing the review petition would lead to the fact that the insurer would not be held liable in which event the owner would be liable to satisfy the award. In either way the pendency of the review petition would not come in the way of the final determination of this appeal.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.