AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. - The appellant has challenged the legality of the award dated 18-5-2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.,) and Addl. MACT, Sira, whereby for the injuries sustained by the appellant, the appellant had been granted a compensation of Rs. 70,600/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20-1 -2007, while the claimant was riding a bicycle from Tumkur to Sira on National Highway No. 4, around 9.30 a.m., a car bearing registration No. KA-16/P-3555, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from Doddakere side, and dashed against the claimant. Consequently, the claimant sustained fractured injuries, and other injuries, and his bicycle was extensively damaged. Initially the claimant was treated at the Government Hospital, Sira and subsequently, at the Government Hospital, Tumkur. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs. In order to buttress his case, the claimant examined two witnesses, and submitted eighteen documents. However, the Insurance Company did not examine any witness. After hearing both the parties, by the award dated 18-5-2009, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement before this Court.
Mr. B.G. Vasanth Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that despite the fact that claimant had pleaded that he was aged 48 years at the time of the accident, the learned tribunal has taken his age as 55 years. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of ''11''. Hence, the loss of income has been miscalculated by the learned Tribunal.
Secondly, although Dr. Rajanna (PW-2) had stated that there is 60% disability in the right leg, and 20% in the whole body, the learned Tribunal has taken the disability in the right leg as 45% and in the whole body as 15%. Therefore, again the loss of income suffered by the claimant is mis calculated.
Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has merely multiplied the income of Rs. 3,600/- by ''11'', whereas the income should have been multiplied further by 12 months.
Lastly, the compensation paid under the category of "pain and agony" is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation deserves to be enhanced by this Court.
On the other hand, Mr. H. S. Lingaraj, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that although the claimant had claimed that he was 48 years old at the time of the accident, according to the wound certificate submitted by him, his age has been recorded as 55 years. The claimant had not produced any evidence to establish the fact that he was indeed, 48 years old at the time of the accident.
Secondly, Dr. Rajanna (PW-2) had admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know whether the claimant had taken proper treatment for his injuries or not. In fact, he is not in a position to inform the learned Tribunal that in case proper treatment were taken, whether the disability would continue or not. Since the witness had expressed a doubt about the proper treatment being taken or not, the learned Tribunal was justified in reducing the disability of the right leg from 60% to 45%, and of the whole body from 20% to 15%.
Thirdly, since the age of the claimant was 55 years, the learned Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of '' 11''. Moreover, the learned Tribunal had calculated the annual income of the claimant as Rs. 3,600/-. Thus, it was justified in multiplying Rs. 3,600/- by ''11''. Hence, there is no further need to multiply the annual income by 12 months.
Lastly, that an amount of Rs. 15,000/-granted for "pain and agony" is a just and reasonable amount. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed that impugned award should not be interfered with by this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.
It is, indeed, trite to state that a party is duty bound to establish its assertion by cogent and convincing evidence. In case the claimant wanted the learned Tribunal to believe that he was merely 48 years old at the time of the accident, it was for the claimant to establish the said fact. But, according to the learned Tribunal, the claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence to buttress his plea. Considering the fact that, according to the wound certificate, the claimant''s age was shown as 55 years, considering the fact that his age would have been recorded upon wound certificate on the basis of a statement either made by the claimant, or a relative of the claimant, who had taken him to the hospital, considering the fact that this was a documentary piece of evidence available before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for accepting the claimant''s age as 55 years.
A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that Dr. Rajanna (PW-2) in his cross-examination had accepted the fact that he is not in a position to say as to the extent of disability that would have been caused to the right leg, or to the whole body on proper treatment being given to the claimant. With this doubt created in the testimony of PW-2, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in reducing the extent of disability in the right leg from 60% to 45%, and for the whole body, from 20% to 15%. Therefore, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for reducing the extent of disability suffered by the claimant.
The learned Tribunal has also calculated the claimant''s income as merely Rs. 450/- per month, and has taken the annual income to be Rs. 5,400/-. It has proceeded to deduct Rs. 1,800/- from the annual income, and to derive at a figure of Rs. 3,600/- as annual income. Taking the claimant''s age as 55, it had applied a multiplier of ''11''. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the figure of Rs. 3,600/- should not only be multiplied by ''11'', but also be multiplied by '' 12'' months, is clearly unacceptable. For, the figure Rs. 3,600/- is the annual income, thereby meaning it as a product of Rs. 450 x 12 - Rs. 1800. Thus, there was no need for the learned Tribunal to multiply the amount of Rs. 3,600/- by 12 months.
As far as the compensation for "pain and agony" is concerned, suffice it to say, a compensation is not meant to be a bonanza. Despite the fact that claimant may continue to suffer pain and agony for the rest of the life, but no amount of money would compensate for the said pain and agony. But, considering the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2007, a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is certainly just and reasonable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is, hereby, dismissed.