Ananda Rangappa vs Subramanya Shivanna

S. Sujatha, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.6.2010. passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, (for short the Tribunal) in MVC No. 174/2007.

Briefly stated the facts are, that the claimant/appellant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, which occurred on 2.5.2007 while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA/15/J/9523, owing to the actionable negligence of the driver of the luggage Auto bearing registration No. KA 14/1663 duly insured with respondent No.2 herein.

On issuance of summons, the Insurer entered appearance and contested the claim. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,35,850/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on an amount of Rs.1,27,850/- from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

Heard Sri B. J. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Harini Shivanand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and award would contend that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 as the claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. The determination of the multiplier made by the Tribunal is contrary to law enunciated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (AIR 2009 SC 3104) The learned counsel further submitted that the monthly income determined by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- is contrary to the evidence placed on record. The claimant was earning the income from agriculture besides doing work as hamali. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the documents namely the RTC extract produced to establish the factum of income earned by the claimant.

The learned counsel further submits that the claimant was hospitalized and taken treatment as an inpatient for nearly 36 days. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards food and attendant charges, extra nourishment food charges and conveyance charges is on the lower side. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the permanent disability at 7% to the whole body, much against the evidence of the doctor who had assessed the permanent physical disability at 9.6% to the whole body. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to enhance the compensation substantially.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supporting the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal would contend that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the agricultural income besides the income earned by the claimant as hamali. The doctor who was examined as P.W.2 has assessed the permanent physical disability to the right lower limb at 16%. In view of the same, the assessment made by the Tribunal towards the permanent physical disability at 7% is reasonable. It is further submitted tht after appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under different heads, which do not warrant any interference by this Court.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the claimant has suffered serious injuries in the road traffic accident namely (1) dislocation of right knee (2) open fracture of right patella (3) fracture of lateral condoyle right femur.

It is an indispute fact that the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for nearly 36 days in the hospital. Considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the medical treatment taken by the claimant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards food and attendant charges, extra nourishment and conveyance charges. It is discerned that the claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and appropriate multiplier would be 16 as per the Sarla Verma''s case as stated (supra). Considering the date of the accident, 2.5.2007, the monthly income determined by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- appears to be on the lower side. This Court is of the considered opinion that the same would be re-determined at Rs.4,000/- based on the circumstantial evidence placed on record. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.53,760/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 16 x 7%). The disability at 7% determined by the Tribunal is justifiable in view of the disability assessed by the doctor to a particular right lower limb at 16% Hence, 7% is retained towards the loss of permanent physical disability.

In view of re-determination of the monthly income at Rs.4,000/-, the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up-period. Considering the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be just and equitable compensation towards the loss of amenities. The compensation of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses is on the lower side. Considering the future medical expenses that would be incurred by the claimant towards the injuries sustained by him as aforesaid and for follow up treatment, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be a reasonable compensation under this head.

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:

Sl.No.

Particulars

Amount [in Rs.]

1.

Pain and sufferings

35,000/-

2.

Hospital and Medical charges

45,000/-

3.

Food and attendant charges Extra nourishment food charges and conveyance charges

15,000/-

4.

Loss of income due to permanent disability

53,760/-

5.

Loss of income during laid up period

12,000/-

6.

Loss of amenities

25,000/-

7.

Future medical expenses

15,000/-

Total

2,00,760/-

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs.2,00,760/- as against Rs.1,35,850/-. The award amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum on an amount of Rs.1,85,760/- from the date of the petition till realization.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.