Subramani vs Ramaiah

A.S. Pachhapure

The owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident

The facts are that at about 9-00 p.m on 28-4-2008 the respondent was returning to his home. At that time a motor-cycle bearing registration No. KA-04-ET-1527 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. Respondent fell down and sustained dislocation and fracture of ankle. In the circumstances, he claimed compensation for the injuries suffered.

During the enquiry, respondent was examined as PW-1 and documents Exs.P-1 to P-18 are marked. The appellant got himself examined as RW-1. The Tribunal after hearing and on appreciation of the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,28,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied by the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed,

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

i) Whether the claimant was able to establish the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle?

ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side?

The accident occurred on 28-4-2008. Copy of the FIR is produced as Ex.P-1. Exs.P2 to P-4 are the spot mahazar, sketch of scene of offence and report of Motor Vehicles Inspector. After completion of investigation, charge sheet, was filed against the rider of the motorcycle. The appellant even did not dispute the contents of Exs.P-1 to P8 relating to the crime registered and the discharge summary. Considering these documents, this Court is also of the opinion that the claimant was able to establish the occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Point (i) is answered accordingly.

The Wound Certificate is produced as Ex.P-5. The claimant has suffered fracture of ankle with dislocation. He was an in-patient from 29-4-2008 to 28-5-2008 and from 18-7-2008 to 21-7-2008. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for pain, suffering and agony. Though it appears that the compensation was liberally granted on this head, considering the feet that claimant was in-patient for more than a month and suffered dislocation and also fracture of ankle, it may not be proper to interfere with the compensation awarded under this head: Even the compensation of Rs. 25,000/-awarded towards incidental charges appears to be reasonable.

Respondent was a Police Constable and was getting a salary of Rs. 11,700/- p.m. The Pay Slip has been produced as Ex.P-13. Considering the dislocation and also fracture, he must have applied leave for a period of two months. Hence, no ground is made-out to interfere with the compensation awarded towards loss of leave

The claimant has not examined the Doctor, There is no evidence regarding disability. He has been continued in service. Therefore, question of loss of amenities does not arise for consideration. The compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is erroneous and improper. To this extent there shall have to be interference in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point (ii) is answered in the affirmative:

Thereby, the appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the quantum of compensation is fixed at Rs. 98,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment,

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.