AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajulu
Though the matter had tome up for admission, with the consent of both parties, it is taken for consideration on merits.
The claimant in MVC No. 9017/2007 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore, is the appellant in this appeal.
The case of the claimant is, that on 8.10.2007 at about 1.30 a.m., while he was moving near Sasken Building, Bommanahalli, the driver of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA 03 EK 2554, has driven the vehicle rashly negligently and hit the claimant, it resulted in injuries to the claimant For the pain and agony suffered by the claimant, seeks for compensation.
The Insurance Company, filed objections denying the accident, call upon the claimant: to prove the accident, impact, contend that the claim is exaggerated. Further, contend that the liability is strictly in accordance with the policy. So, plead for dismissal of the claim application.
After framing or the issues, PWs.1 & 2 are examined. Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. The learned member of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,30,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.
The teamed advocate for the claimant submits that there being a disability to the mental capacity of the claimant, disability assessed by the doctor at 100% should have been accepted by the learned member of the Tribunal so also the injuries being to the head, the compensation awarded under the other heads including loss of income during treatment period is less, requires interference by this Court Accordingly, pray for allowing the appeal.
The findings of the learned member of the Tribunal are supported by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
In regard to the disability in question, the learned member of the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW2, it has formed an opinion that it has to award compensation to reduce the financial burden and to place the claimant in the same economical structure with best human possible efforts though it cannot compensate the loss sustained by the claimant Therefore, assessed the whole body disability at 25% as against the disability assessed by the doctor at 100%.
The claimant is a driver, though there is claim of disability to an extent of 100%, driving license is not surrendered, it probablise continuation of occupation. So, the Court having taken the disability at 25% the earning at Rs.4,500/- p.m., and the accident is of the year 2007, the compensation awarded towards loss of earning capacity do not require interference. So also looking to the treatment period of one month and follow-up treatment, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering do not require interference.
The claimant having sustained head injury, he might have taken treatment for further period of two months. So, Rs.9,000/- is awarded towards laid up periods the same. Similarly, under the heads conveyance and attendant charges, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. Hence, the claimant to entitled for the enhanced compensate of Rs. 19,600/-. It shall carry interest at 6% from the date of application till deposit. The compensation awarded under other heads are not altered.
The appeal is allowed in part.