D. Mohan vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 22nd August 2006, passed in MVC No. 7642/2004, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-9), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,66,140/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 6,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 26 years, working as Engineer, working in Friction Enterprises, getting salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 12:30 Midnight, on 27-10-2004, when the appellant was ridding pillion on a Bike bearing Registration No. KA-02/W-7013, on 50 Ft. Road at Hanumanthanagar, near Kaggi''s Bakery, the rider of the said Bike lost control and caused the accident, due to which, the appellant fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Hospital for treatment and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS and HOSMAT Hospitals, for further treatment.

It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable 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 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd August, 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. 2,66,140/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel for first respondent/Insurance Company, for considerable length of time.

It is the case of the appellant that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of the grievous injuries and disability sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. He further submitted that, the Tribunal further erred in not awarding any compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges even though on account of the grievous injuries sustained, the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of 13 days as inpatient in different Hospitals and the Doctor, PW2, after clinical and radiological examination has assessed the permanent disability towards whole body at 12% and there is loss of memory, loss of vision, frequent head ache and he is not in a position to do any work. Further, the appellant has to pull on the life with the said disability for the rest of his life. On the advise of the Doctor, the appellant has taken follow-up treatment and on account of the permanent disability, the appellant has lost the future happiness, comforts and amenities in life.

It is the further case of the appellant that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards future medical expenses and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. All these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/Insurer, inter alia, sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, nature of injuries sustained, age and avocation of appellant, nature and duration of treatment undergone and hence, interference in the same is unwarranted.

After going through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, after hearing learned counsel appearing for first respondent/Insurer and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,

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

After perusal of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 26 years and a Mechanical Engineer working at Friction Enterprises. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, medical expenses and also the disability sustained by appellant, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 65,000/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions, Rs. 1,34,640/- towards loss of future earnings, and Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of income during treatment period. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

However, so far as the compensation awarded under injury, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries head injury, haemorrhage, fracture of left maxilla, fracture of left mid orbital wall, fracture of bilateral ethmoid and other injuries. He took treatment in NIMHANS hospital, where CT scan was done and later shifted to HOSMAT hospital, where again CT scan was done and he was in-patient for a total period of 13 days. PW2, Doctor after looking at the nature of injuries sustained, has assessed the whole body disability at 12%. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has accepted the said disability and we also accept the same, to meet the ends of justice. The appellant being aged about only 26 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Further, it is seen that the monthly income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 5,500/- is also just and proper and we accept the same considering the age, avocation and also the year of accident, being 2004.

Further, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the appellant took treatment as in-patient for nearly 13 days. During this period, he must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. But, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation under this head. Further, on account of the grievous injuries and permanent disability sustained, the appellant has to suffer future inconveniences and discomforts. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards loss of amenities, discomfort is on the lower side and liable to redetermined. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, disability, nature and duration of treatment undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, as against Rs. 30,000/-; Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by Tribunal and Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under this head.

Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 4,01,140/- as against Rs. 2,66,140/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 22nd August 2006, passed in MVC No. 7642/2004, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-9), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,01,140/- as against Rs. 2,66,140/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows:

There would be enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The first respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

On such deposit by the Insurance Company, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, forthwith.

Office to draw award, accordingly.