D. Siddeshi @ Siddappa vs Y. Basavaraj

Mr. B. Manohar, J.—Appellant is the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 18-03-2010 made in MVC No. 396/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Davangere (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 24-3-2008, while he along with other persons were proceeding in a Van bearing Registration No. KA-17/6412 towards Sirigere Mutt, the driver of the said Van drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without observing the road hump, suddenly applied the brake. In view of that, the claimant fell down from the van and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to City Central Hospital at Davangere He claims that he has spent huge money towards bis treatment. Prior to the accident, he was working as a coolie and earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to work as coolie as he was doing prior to the accident. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed common written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The 3rd respondent-insurance company filed written statement specifically denying the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Further it was contended that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive that class of vehicle. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined Dr. Nagabhushan who treated him as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P94. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined; however, the driving license and a copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration IMV report, spot panchanama, copy of the complaint and charge sheet held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van. Hence the claimant is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimant claims that he was working as a coolie and earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. In view of that, the Tribunal reckoned the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/- p.m., and deducting ⅓rd cowards his personal expenditure, assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,000/-. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years. Hence, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 13. The doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 30% to a particular limb. The Tribunal assessed the disability to an extent of 7% to the whole body. Hence, awarded a sum of Rs. 21,840/- towards future loss of income; Rs. 49,566.50 towards medical expenditure; Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 76,606/- which was rounded off to Rs. 76,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident, the liability was fastened on the 3rd respondent-insurance company to compensate the claimant.

The claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation mainly contending that the compensation awarded on all the heads is lower side; no compensation has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life, loss of income during the laid up period; expenditure towards attendant charges, conveyance and nourishment and hence sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, Sri.S.N. Aswathnarayan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-insurance company argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

Occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident are not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation. In the claim petition, the claimant has contended that he was working as a coolie and earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2008. The Tribunal had taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/- p.m., which is contrary to law. Even for the daily wage employees working in various Government Departments and also in Lok Adalath, the income is being taken more than Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 4,500/- per month. In the instant case, the claimant claims that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. The Tribunal ought to have taken his income as Rs. 4,000/- p.m., while awarding compensation. Further, at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years and the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 14 and not 13 as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. Further, in the accident the claimant has sustained fracture of left leg. The wound certificate Ex.P5 reveals that along with fracture of leg, he has sustained other simple injuries also. Dr. Nagabhushan who was examined as P.W.2 in his evidence has clearly deposed that in view of the fracture of left leg, the claimant has suffered disability to an extent of 30% to a particular limb. The Tribunal while awarding compensation ought to have taken 1l/3rd of the said disability which comes to 10%. Hence, taking the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- p.m., disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body, applying the multiplier 14, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 67,200/- towards future loss of income. Further a sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is also on the lower side. Hence, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 15,000/- in addition to Rs. 5,000/-. Further, the claimant has to lead his remaining life with the disability of 30% to a particular limb as assessed by the doctor. Hence, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. A sum of Rs. 49,566.50 awarded towards medical expenditure is in accordance with law. Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,56,766/- as against Rs. 76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award doted 18-03-2010 made in MVC No. 396/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Davanrege is hereby modified. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,56,766/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against Rs. 76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of the order dated 24-03-2015, the claimant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 312 days in filing the appeal.