AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the common judgment and award dated 18th November 2006, passed in MVC No. 3147/2005, by the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City, (for short, ''Tribunal''), on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,09,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the appellant as against his claim for Rs. 15,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 22 years and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 12:30 P.M., on 04-03-2005, when the appellant along with others was proceeding in a Hero Honda Motoe cycle bearing No. KA01/U-1464, on the extreme left side of Bangalore-Mysore Road, opposite SPR factory, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-02/V-5455, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained swelling deformity, shortening restricted movements of right thigh, lacerated wound left leg. X-ray of right thigh showed comminuted displaced fracture of shaft of femur and X-ray of left leg showed fracture of both bones of leg. As per Ex. P17, he has sustained comminuted displaced fracture of shaft of femur and fracture of both bones of leg. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Sahana Hospital, where he was in-patient for a period of eight days.
It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above. The appellant has also underwent operation for interlocing nail for femur and interlocking nail for tibia under epidural anesthesia and re-admitted at Hosmat Hospital for re-adjustment of screws of disable femur on 17-03-2005 and again admitted on 14-09-2005 for dynamisation and fibular osteotomy was done on 14-09-2005. Totally, he has undergone three operations for fractures sustained by him and was advised six months'' treatment and rest. Further, the Doctor has assessed 30% disability to the whole body and 65% disability towards left lower limb. For the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th November, 2006. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,09,600/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of amenities is on the lower side and hence, reasonable enhancement may be made under the said head and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after going through the impugned common judgment and award passed by Tribunal, we are of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation towards pain and sufferings, medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, future medical expenses and loss of income during treatment period. Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability. The appellant has sustained swelling deformity, shortening restricted movements of right thigh, lacerated wound left leg. X-ray of right thigh showed comminuted displaced fracture of shaft of femur and X-ray of left leg showed fracture of both bones of leg. As per Ex. P17, he has sustained comminuted displaced fracture of shaft of femur and fracture of both bones of leg. Further, the Doctor has assessed 30% disability to the whole body and 65% disability towards left lower limb. But, the Tribunal has totally disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor regarding disability has awarded meagre compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability. But, the permanent disability of 30% assessed by Doctor may come in the way of the appellant discharging his day-today activities. Further, the appellant being aged about only 22 years at the time of accident has to undergo this ordeal for the rest of his life. It can be seen further that PW3, Doctor has deposed that due to disability, the appellant has difficulty in movement of right and left lower limbs and hip joints and operative scar seen on the right hip, thigh, left leg and ankle. Further he has deposed that even if the fractures are united, the scar mark remains at the site of injury. Therefore, the appellant has to suffer unhappiness from the difficulties to do the work for the rest of his life. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries, age and avocation, percentage of disability, and bearing in mind the totality of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by claimant/appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 18th November 2006, passed in MVC No. 3147/2005, by the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Upon deposit of the said sum by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.