Ajay Shetty vs P. Rakesh Kumar and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 28/11/2011 passed in MVC No. 900/2009, by the Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,73,880/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 7.5.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. at Patla Puthige village, Mangalore when the appellant along with his friend was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. KA. 19. Y. 5132, at that time, the driver of Tata Heavy Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL. 14. A. 9432 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries viz., fracture of tibia and fracture of fibula and other simple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to City Hospital, Mangalore, where, he took treatment as inpatient from 7.5.2009 to 2.7.2009 and 5.8.2009 to 8.8.2009 for a period of 59 days and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the functional disability at 12% to his right leg as per Ex. P12-disability certificate. Therefore, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,73,880/- under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

I have perused the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal.

It is the contention of the appellant that, he is aged about 19 years, earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as Mechanic in a Garage, but the Tribunal has erred in assessing his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side and it requires reassessment. Further, he has contended that, he has undergone treatment as inpatient for 59 days on different dates and spent reasonable amount towards conveyance and other incidental charges. Further, it is contended that, he has sustained two grievous injuries i.e. fracture of tibia and fracture of fibula and the Doctor has issued the disability certificate as per Ex. P12 assessing the disability at 12% to his right leg and 6% to the whole body and due to which, it is difficulty for him to work and to attend his personal matters and he is not in a position to attend his daily activities and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the functional disability at 100%. Therefore, it is contended by the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on lower side and is liable to be enhanced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. After going through the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, on account of fractures of tibia and fibula sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P3-wound certificate, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 59 days on different dates, during that period, he might have undergone pain and agony, spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses and the Doctor has assessed the functional disability at 6% to the whole body. It further emerges that, the Tribunal having regard to the age, occupation of the appellant, has justified in assessing his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, disability at 6% to the whole body and in adopting multiplier of ''18'' taking his age as 18 years and I accept the same. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him, has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 60,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 8,000/- towards conveyance, food and nourishment, Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 38,880/- towards future loss of income and Rs. 25,000/- towards discomforts in all, Rs. 1,73,880/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, which is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for interference. Nor I find any justification or good grounds as such made out by the appellant to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.