AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Appeal by North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Gulbarga u/s 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and award dated 30.05.2011. In a road accident involving vehicle of the. Corporation, the respondent-claimant had been injured and she had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal examined the claim petition in support of which the claimant led oral and documentary evidence. She got herself examined before the Tribunal as PW. 1 and one Doctor Sri. Kishore Mengaji being examined as Technical expert to assess impact of the injury suffered by the claimant on future earning capacity and also exhibited Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.38 which consisted of documents, relating to the registration of the case against driver of the vehicle, chargesheet, spot panchanama, report of the Inspector of the Motor Vehicles, wound certificate, medical prescription, the disability certificate issued by the Doctor were all exhibited apart from X-ray photos and the report were also placed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal in appreciation of this evidence has computed the quantum of compensation payable to the respondent - claimant as under:
1.
Pain and Suffering
Rs. 15,000/ -
2.
Medical Expenses
Rs. 4,500/-
3.
Attendant, nursing, extra nourishment Charges and conveyances
Rs. 5,000/-
4.
Loss of future earnings
Rs. 57,600/-
5.
Loss of income during led-up period
Rs. 1,000/-
6.
Loss of amenities
Rs. 10,000/-
Total
Rs. 93,100/-
It is against this order the present appeal by the Corporation on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, submission of Mr. Shivakumar Manur, Learned Counsel is that the Tribunal has committed an error in evaluating the compensation that the wound certificate that had been issued initially by the Doctor who had given treatment immediately after the accident only showed that the injuries which the respondent had suffered were simple in nature and the Doctor who has deposed before the Court as PW. 2 is not one who had treated her and therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in placing reliance on his evidence to award compensation towards loss of future earning capacity etc.
On a perusal of the Judgment and order, it is noticed that the respondent had also placed before the Court documentary evidence to support the claim that she had not only underwent treatment for fracture but had been hospitalised and the treatment was subsequent to the initial first aid given to the claimant. The fracture is revealed only when it is examined through X-ray film and may not be noticed immediately on a superficial examination unless it is serious and giving sufficient pain and sufferings to the sufferer.
Be that as it may, I do not find any error in appreciation of such evidence by the Tribunal and it cannot be characterised that the claimant had fabricated the bills only to claim higher compensation. Having regard to the total compensation of Rs. 93, 100/- awarded in favour of the respondent, in respect of the claim, I do not find any need or scope for interference with the Judgment and award of the Tribunal.
This appeal is dismissed as also application for condonation of delay and application for stay. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant.