Abhay Gupta vs M.A. Jaleel

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

The appellant having sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident, filed a claim petition before MACT, Gulbarga seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,473/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the sum awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on 22.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tanker bearing Reg. No. KA-38-A-0004 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in this appeal is:

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

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and is on the lower side and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is deserved to be enhanced.

As per wound certificate Ex. P-6, the appellant-'' claimant has sustained injury to extracranial right tempro parietal region and other injuries to head. Injuries sustained and treatment undergone by him are also evident from Ex. P 9 disability certificate, Ex. P-10 CT Scan Report, Ex. P-11 CT Scan film, Ex. P-12 OPD cards, Ex. P-16 MRI reports and supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor who were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. Based on X-ray report produced at Ex. P-10 the following observations have been made:

"� Brain stem and cerebellum are normal.

� No midline shift seen.

� Ventricles are normal in size and shape.

� No abnormal calcification or SOL noted in the Brain.

� No haemorrhage or Infract seen in the Brain.

� Fissures and sulci are normal

� Skull vault and base are normal.

� Gray and white matter attenuation is normal.

� Sella and Pituitary are normal.

� Eye balls and optic nerve are normal.

� Mastiod air cells are normal.

� Evidence of post rheumatic soft tissue and Oedema over the extracranial right tempro parietal region."

PW-2-Doctor who treated the claimant in his evidence has stated that there is disability of 53% to the whole body. However it is also noticed that he is neither a neurologist nor neuro surgeon. X-ray report further reveals a normal brain study. It has also come in evidence that claimant has continued his profession as doctor even after sustaining injuries. It is in this backdrop, the Tribunal is justified in declining to award compensation towards loss of future income.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and manner of treatment undergone by him, Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and therefore we enhance it by another Rs. 30,000/- and award Rs. 60,000/- under this head.

As Rs. 62,833/- 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.

He was treated as an inpatient for a period of 2 months in Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. Considering the duration of treatment, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs. 16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 33,640/- towards loss of income during laid up period by computing the same based on his earning by profession as a doctor and the same is just and proper and does not call for enhancement.

In the X-ray report it is observed that brain stem and cerebellum are normal and as stated at paragraph-24 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also observed in paragraph-25 of its judgment that the disability stated by PW-2 doctor at 53% to the whole body is not based on proper assessment. In that view of the matter, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and disability as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which would meet the ends of justice.

Thus, the appellant is entitled to following compensation:

Thus the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,31,473/- as against Rs. 1,62,473/- awarded by the Tribunal and is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 69,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 69,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The insurance company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant.

Office to draw up the award accordingly.

No order as to costs.