Vaibhav Vikas vs Amit

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—Though there is no representation from both the sides, considering this is an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we have gone through the appeal memo including the grounds urged and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and disposed of the appeal at the time of admission itself.

The appellant having sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident filed a claim petition in MVC No. 59/2012 before MACT at Bidar, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as MV Act for short) from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,19,364/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.11.2011 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-39/J-9241 by its rider and liability of the insurer of the said vehicle, the only point remains for our consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?"

After perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and therefore it is required to be enhanced.

As per Ex. P3 wound certificate the claimant had sustained the following injuries;

i) Multiple fracture of skull bones;

ii) Fracture of both bones of left leg.

Injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant are also evident from the discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital Hyderabad at Ex. P-8, a bunch of X-ray and CT scan reports at Ex. P14, disability certificates at Ex. P19 and 20, two X-ray films at Ex. P22 and supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and three doctors who were examined as P.Ws. 2 to 4 respectively.

P.W. 2 doctor B.G. Ratnam of Hyderabad, has stated in his evidence that he examined the claimant and issued disability certificate. He has also stated that he was working as Consultant Neuro Surgeon at Apollo hospital Hyderabad, and as per Ex. P8 discharge summary of Apollo hospital the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 16.11.2011 and at the time of admission he was diagnosed for left parietal fracture, left parietal temporal bone fracture, left parietal contusion, left orbital thyroid orbital wall fractured, Grade II fracture of tibia and fibulas lower 1/3rd and he was admitted in ICU in state of mild coma and since his brain pressure was minimal, he was managed without operation for his head injury and on 17.11.2011 he was operated by Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. K.J. Reddy, and team and he had brain water leakage from the ear and delayed passer view and he was in consultation with ENT Surgeon.

P.W. 3 doctor Mallikarjun G.B. of Bidar, has stated in his evidence that he is orthopedic surgeon working at Bidar, he examined the claimant and issued disability certificate as per Ex. P19, opining that the claimant had permanent disability of 38% to lower limb, which corresponds to 10-12% of whole body and the claimant is having implants in his left leg and for removal of implants, he requires Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.

P.W. 4 doctor Rajendra Kothari, Consultant Surgeon of Gulbarga, has stated in his evidence that he verified the wound certificate, discharge card, investigation report and recent X-ray of skull of the claimant and on his examination he found that the claimant had sustained head injury, brain injury and fracture injury of left lower limb and there was bleeding injury from left ear and he was admitted in Apollo hospital Hyderabad and has stated that he had disability of 37% to the whole body.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs. 60,000/- and award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 under this head.

As Rs. 2,90,865/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills and prescriptions produced by the claimant the same is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.

The appellant-claimant was treated as in-patient for more than 12 days in Apollo hospital at Hyderabad and also in local hospital at Bidar, considering the same a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant's charges as against Rs. 6,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The claimant in his claim petition as well as in his evidence has stated that he was studying in 5th Semester of B.E. The said evidence of the claimant is not challenged by the insurer. Therefore, considering his age as 22 years at the time of accident, year of accident as 2011 and his educational qualification, we assess his income at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as against Rs. 3,000/- p.m. assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of injuries sustained by the claimant suggest that he must have been under rest for a period of six months. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness he has to undergo in his future life a sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced by another Rs. 30,000/- and we award Rs. 50,000/- under this head.

Now we have assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18 as rightly applied by the Tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries the Tribunal is justified in taking the functional disability of the claimant at 25%, if that is so, loss of future income would work out to Rs. 2,70,000/- (5,000 x 25/100 x 12 x 18) and it is awarded as against Rs. 1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Considering the year of accident, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is on the lower side and therefore, we award interest at 8% p.a. for the enhanced compensation.

Thus claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation Rs. 7,50,865/- as against 5,19,364/- awarded by the tribunal and he is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 2,31,501/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed in-part. Judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 2,31,501/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

From the additional compensation of Rs. 2,31,501/- Rs. 2,00,00/- with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in FD in the name of appellant-claimant in any Nationalized bank/Scheduled Bank/Grameena Bank/Post Office for a period of 10 years with a right of option for the claimant to withdraw interest periodically. Remaining amount of Rs. 31,501/- with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in his favour.

The Tribunal, while releasing the remaining the amount is also directed to issue FD slips in favour of the claimant so that he can withdraw the FD amount on maturity and the Bank/the post office in which the FD will be invested is also directed to release FD on maturity without insisting for further orders from the Tribunal.

Draw up the award accordingly.

No order as to costs.