AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 11th June 2008, passed in MVC No. 3726/2006, by the IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore (SCCH-7), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 65,000/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 50,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 34 years and a businessman in Textiles, earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 7:15 A.M., on 22-12-2005, when the appellant was traveling in Volvo A/C coach Bus bearing Registration No. LA-01/AE-2222 as passenger, the driver of the said Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and while he was so proceeding on Bankapura Mundugod Cross, suddenly he over took some of the vehicles from behind and went to the extreme right side and dashed against a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-25/B-1758. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, where he was treated as in-patient.
It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 11th June 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for second respondent/Insurance Company for considerable length of time.
It is the case of the appellant that on account of the road traffic accident, he sustained in all three injuries, viz. isolated fracture of left fibula which is grievous and the other two injuries are simple in nature and was in-patient for some period in the Hospital and therefore, he has to be awarded reasonable compensation.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, we are of the view that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 40 years and a businessman in Textiles. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings; Rs. 10,000/- towards residual disability, Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period and Rs. 18,000/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, in all a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.
However, so far as the reasoning given by the Tribunal for assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month is concerned, the same calls for interference by this Court. It is stated that the appellant is a businessman in Textiles. But, to substantiate the same, he has not produced any documentary evidence and the monthly income of Rs. 40,000/- stated by appellants appears to be an exaggeration. But, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month assessed by Tribunal is also on the lower side. The Tribunal at least could have assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,500/-.
Further, it can be seen that as per the Wound Certificate at Ex. P4, the appellant has sustained in all three injuries and out of them one is grievous in nature and he has been treated conservatively. It is stated that the fracture is united and that fibula is not the weight bearing bone. PW 3 has deposed that the appellant does not have any physical disability which is likely to affect his earning capacity and therefore the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there is no loss of earning capacity. Further, because of the injuries sustained including fracture, it can be seen that the appellant would have suffered some disability and there would be loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness for some period. But, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. Further, the monthly income assessed by Tribunal is also on the lower side. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, nature of treatment undergone and taking into consideration the other relevant aspects, we award a global compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 11th June 2008, passed in MVC No. 3726/2006, by the IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore (SCCH-7), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
On such deposit by the Insurance Company, the entire sum shall be released in favour of appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.