B. Pradeep vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19/04/2014, passed in MVC No. 1005/2011, by the III Additional District Judge and IV Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 6,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, as against the claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 28 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident, working in a Private Firma, namely, Nesara Solar and drawing the salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. That on 18.7.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. the appellant and his friends were standing on the extreme end of the left side of NH 206 road in front of SIT College, Tumkur and waiting for the bus, at that time, the driver of one KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA.06.F.0711 came from SS Circle side to go to Bangalore in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant. Due to which, he fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus passed on his right leg and the said leg was crushed and fractured and caused severe bleeding injuries on his head and other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumkur, he was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore, for further treatment, then he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and then to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore , where he took treatment as inpatient from 18.7.2011 to 25.7.2011, since his right leg was completely damaged, it was amputated and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment." 3. It is the further case of the appellant that, he has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the physical disability at 60%. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 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 hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 6,29,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. Shantharaj K, appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the permanent disability at 20% contrary to the evidence of the Doctor, who after clinical examination has assessed the physical disability at 60% and therefore, the percentage of disability assessed by the Doctor may be accepted. He further submitted that the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- per month is on the lower side since the accident had occurred in the year 2011 and that the Tribunal has also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards future medical expenses, including incidental expenses, towards loss of income during the treatment period, towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness , towards loss of future income and towards marriage prospects and therefore, it is liable to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 8 days, his right leg was amputated, he spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment for more than three months, on account of the permanent disability suffered by him, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his earning capacity as he is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier and it would affect his marriage prospects and he requires some amount towards future medical expenses for purchase of artificial limb including incidental expenses. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Further, he submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced since the accident is of the year 2011. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation, inter- alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, appellant was aged about 28 years, working in a Private firm and on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him, his right leg was amputated, due to which, he is not in a position to do his work as he suffers from 60% permanent disability. The Tribunal, has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month which is on the lower side and is liable to be re-assessed reasonably. Having regard to the age, occupation and year of the accident, we re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs. 6,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice. As per the evidence of the Doctor, appellant suffers from permanent physical disability at 60%, but the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 20%. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant as there is an amputation of right leg, we re-assess the permanent disability to the whole body at 60% instead of 20% as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life and also affects his earning capacity and marriage prospects.

Further, it emerges that, during the course of treatment, appellant might have undergone pain and agony and on the advise of the Doctor, he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment atleast for three months, during the said period, he might have sustained financial loss, as he could not have attended his work regularly and the disability is permanent in nature and as there was an amputation of right leg, he has to replace the artificial limb once in three years and for that, he may require some amount. The proper multiplier applicable would be ''17'' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal since the appellant was aged about 28 years as on the date of the accident and we accept the same. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering instead of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for three months at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month instead of Rs. 5,000/-; Rs. 3,50,000/- towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and future medical expenses instead of Rs. 3,20,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness instead of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 7,34,400/- ( Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 17 x 60%) towards loss of future earnings instead of Rs. 2,04,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects instead of Rs. 20,000/-.

In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 14,52,400/- instead of Rs. 6,29,000/- and the break-up is as follows:

Regarding rate of interest is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 8% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till its realization is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2011. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court and since the accident is of the year 2011, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization on the enhanced compensation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 19/04/2014, passed in MVC No. 1005/2011, by the III Additional District Judge and IV Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 14,52,400/- instead of Rs. 6,29,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 8,23,400/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,23,400/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

Immediately on such deposit by the respondent-Corporation, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,23,400/-, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 2,23,400/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.