Chandramohan vs Bharathi Exa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2013 passed in MVC No. 5436/2011 on the file of XVII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation.

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,52,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal.

The brief facts of the case in hands are:

"It is the case of the appellant that, he was aged about 29 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was working as a procurement Executive at Chaitanya Products Pvt. Ltd., and earning a sum of Rs. 20,864/- per month as per Ex. P12. He met with an accident on 27.07.2012 at about 12:40 p.m., He contended that while he was riding the motor cycle bearing No. KA-01-V-1901 on Graphite India Road in front of IFB factory, at that time, a pork lifter lorry bearing No. KA-03-MA-9032 driven by its driver came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant''s bike. Due to the impact, he sustained fatal injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Sagar Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated as an inpatient for a period of 10 days i.e., from 27.07.2011 to 06.08.2011 and he also undergone one surgery. It is the further case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and suffered mental pain and agony, discomfort and unhappiness during treatment period and has to endure the permanent disability through out his future career. The doctor has advised for follow up treatment and opined that he requires reasonable amount towards future medical expenses. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellant filed a claim petition against the respondents under Section 166 of M.V. Act for compensation before the Tribunal. The said claim petition filed by the appellant had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant documents available on record, taking into consideration the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained and duration of treatment undergone, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,52,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under different heads."

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. T.P. Srinivasa at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, disability suffered and future medical expenses. The Doctor who treated the claimant has opined that he has suffered 13% disability to the whole body. What has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It requires re-consideration by enhancing compensation. It is the specific case of the appellant that on account of the road traffic accident he sustained spinal instability, some percentage of vertebral body weight reduction and urinary and sexual disturbances along with paraspinal pain and undergone treatment for a period of 10 days. He was under follow up treatment as per the advice of the Doctor. Therefore he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation.

As against this, Sri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 inter-alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is passed after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

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

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

It is not in dispute that the appellant had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 27.07.2011. He was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as an Executive, earning Rs. 20,864/- per month. On account of the road traffic accident, he sustained multiple injuries i.e., spinal column bone is divided into three parts, neck portion, upper part and lower back. The lower back consisting of 5 vertebra called as L1 to L5 (Lumbar). According to medical opinion, in case of simple fracture of a spinal column bone, at least 3 months rest is required. If there is a fracture of spinal column bones, sometimes there may be chances of paralysis of lower limbs and urinary bladder and bowel disturbance and partial weakness in the lower limbs affecting the nerves systems and causing partial weakness. Sometimes the disability suffered is reversible with a good treatment. It is further observed that as per the evidence of the Doctor, there is a spinal instability, some percentage of vertebral body weight reduction and urinary and sexual disturbances along with paraspinal pain. The Doctor further opined that on 28.07.2011, L1 to L3 pedicle screw fixation and L2 corpectomy and interbody cage fixation and fusion was done to the claimant. The claimant must have suffered mental pain and agony, discomfort and unhappiness during the treatment period and has to endure the permanent disability through out his life. The Doctor has advised that he may require a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards future medical expenses. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts referred above, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards ''pain and suffering'' as against Rs. 50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards ''loss of amenities'' as against Rs. 60,000/- and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards ''future medical expenses'' as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 3,12,600/- towards ''medical expenses'' as per medical bills and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards ''food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges''. Therefore, interference by this Court does not call for.

In all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 6,57,600/- as against Rs. 4,52,600/- and the break- up is as follows:

Enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 2,05,000/-.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In the light of the Judgments of the Apex Court and this court in catena of judgments, we deem it fit to award interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred above, instant appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2013 passed in MVC No. 5436/2011 on the file of XVII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Mayo hall Unit, Bengaluru is hereby modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The 1st respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-, 50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Grameena Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for 5 years with liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.

The remaining 50% of the amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.