Ambrish vs Sharanabasappa

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Present appeal is filed by the claimant of a case bearing MVC No. 30/2010, which was pending on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Gulbarga. In all, a sum of Rs. 2,50,600/- is awarded as compensation under 7 heads as found at page No. 11 of the impugned judgment. The same is as follows:

Being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has approached this Court.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The accident that took place at about 9.00 a.m. on 3.10.2009 when appellant was traveling in his car bearing No. KA-32-M-7236 near Gutur KEB Complex Cross on Harapanhalli road is not disputed. The number of the offending vehicle was TN-34-D-7025 and had been validly insured by the 2nd respondent. It had been owned by the registered owner Mr. Arun - the 1st respondent.

The appellant/claimant is examined as P.W. 1 and Dr. Kishore Mengahji, an Orthopedic Surgeon of Gulbarga is examined as P.W.2. The medical bill placed on record is to an extent of Rs. 1,82,000/-. The appellant was treated as an inpatient in Wockhardt Hospital, Bangalore from 04.10.2009 to 14.10.2009. He had sustained comminuted fracture of left distal end humarus and fracture of left ulna with ulnar nerve palsy. Apart from this, he had sustained fracture of left petrous, squamouous temporal bone, left zygoma arch fracture and left maxilla fracture. He had suffered left facial nerve LMN palsy.

Ex. P9 is the discharge summary. Though the doctor who treated the appellant has not been examined, the authenticity of Ex. P9 cannot be doubted. In view of the gravity of the injuries sustained, medical bills are placed on record in regard to the amounts spent for treatment and medicine. Instead of awarding Rs. 1,82,000/- under the head medical expenses-incurred, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the reason assigned is that medical bills are not supported by prescriptions. If medical bills so produced vide Ex. P14(1) are to be disbelieved, they will have to be disbelieved in entirety on the ground of non-production of prescriptions. Taking into consideration the number of injuries and the gravity of the injuries sustained by him and the treatment that he obtained in a reputed hospital at Bangalore, the Tribunal is not justified in not awarding the entire amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- claimed under the head medical expenses-incurred. Hence, medical expenses of Rs. 1,82,000/- will have to be awarded.

Only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head "pain and suffering". Taking into consideration the nature of injuries and the gravity of the injuries, the amount awarded under the head "pain and suffering" is too inadequate and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is the reasonable amount that has to be awarded under the said head instead of Rs. 10,000/-.

A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head "future amenities". Taking into consideration the various types of injuries sustained by the appellant on different parts of the body, one can expect that he would put to lot of inconvenience through out his life and amount awarded under the said head is too inadequate and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be just and reasonable under the head "loss of amenities and pleasure in future life".

Only a sum of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded under the head "loss of income during the laid up period". Taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries, one can expect that he would not able to work at least for three months. Appellant was aged about 30 years and was doing business. His income is assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Taking into consideration that he was quite hale and healthy and was working as Accountant in a private finance, his income will have to be assessed at least for three months at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month and if the same is taken into consideration, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- will have to be awarded towards "loss of income during the laid up period".

So far as future treatment is concerned, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded and the doctor, who has assessed the disability of the appellant has sated that he requires about Rs. 25,000/-. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by him and the implants inserted in his body, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is the reasonable amount under the head "future medical expenses".

A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded under the head conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. This is on the lower side. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be the reasonable amount under the head "conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges".

Loss of future income is assessed at Rs. 57,600/-, calculating the disability at 10%. 10% of Rs. 4,000/- would be Rs. 400/- per month and the annual loss of disability would be Rs. 4,800/-. 16 multiplier is taken into consideration, considering the age of the appellant as 32 years. If the annual loss of disability of Rs. 4,800/- is multiplied by 16 multiplier, the "loss of future income" under this head would be Rs. 76,800/- instead or Rs. 57,600/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 76,800/- is awarded under this head.

In view of the injuries to his face, there is a little disfigurement and this is forthcoming from the evidence of P.W.2. Hence, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- will have to be awarded under the head "Disfigurement".

Thus, the appellant will be entitled for compensation on different heads as follows:

Thus, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 4,20,800/- instead of Rs. 2,50,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and it should be 9% p.a.

Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,70,200/- (Rs. 4,20,800/- less Rs. 2,50,600/-) with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of filing of a petition till realization. The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified accordingly.

Appeal is allowed with costs.