Deda Ram vs M.N. Padmanabha and another

Rathnakala, J. - The appellant herein is aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore and MACT, Bangalore (the Tribunal for brevity), in M.V.C. No. 6485/2005 dated 18-12-2006, on his claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Succinctly stated, as on 19-8-2005, the appellant was a minor, at 5.45 p.m., he met with a motor vehicle accident involving Tata Indica car bearing registration No. KA-05/ AC-2006 due to which, he suffered multiple grievous and simple injuries. He was treated firstly at K. R. Hospital, Bangalore, then at Rajashekar Hospital, then at Mallya Hospital and finally at M.D.M. Hospital at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At the time of accident, he was working as a Carpenter earning Rs. 200/- per day. For more than one month, he was under coma and now he is disabled to carry on his profession. The claim was contested by the insurer of the vehicle.

The Tribunal on overall evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,38,000/- with interest 6% per annum.

Smt. Ashadevi C.G., learned counsel for the appellant assailing the award of the Tribunal submits that the appellant is a coolie by profession. Because of his disabled condition, he could not be examined before the Court as a witness. The Doctor, who treated him, had categorically stated that, he will not be able to continue his previous job as Carpenter; Tracheotomy is conducted on him and his breathing is not normal and there is a chance of neurological deficit. The Tribunal disregard of this evidence has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 1,88,105/- towards medical and incidental expenses; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period; Rs. 64,800/- towards loss of future income and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities. In fact, loss of future income ought to have been worked out with the disability of 100%; for not having done so, the compensation amount is substantially decreased, which has caused miscarriage of justice.

In reply, Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/insurer while taking me through the impugned judgment and award submits that the Doctor has stated that the percentage of disability to the whole body is only 5% whereas the Tribunal has taken at 10% to capitalize the loss of future earning. Under other heads also, whatever is granted is just and reasonable not warranting interference.

In the light of the above submissions, I have gone through the case records so also the impugned award.

As per the records as on the date of the accident, the Doctor/P.W. 2 treated the injured; he had multiple facial and abrasions all over the body; head injury with loss of consciousness and deformity tenderness over the left clavicle and shoulder. His permanent disability to the upper limb is 10% and in reference to the whole body, it is 5%. In the absence of any evidence with regard to neurological disability suffered by him, 1 am of the considered opinion that, Rs. 64,800/- worked out by the Tribunal towards loss of future earning by working with income at Rs. 3,000/- per month is well reasoned. However, having regard to the fact that, from the date of accident i.e., 19-8-2005, he was intermittently being hospitalized and finally discharged on 8-1-2006, it may be safely assumed that he lost his income for seven months, thereby his loss of income during treatment period comes to Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 7) as against Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In respect of treatment and sufferings, that too with the presence of tube, towards pain and suffering he is entitled for additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- over and above Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards incidental expenses and attendant charges and the transportation from Bangalore to Jodhpur, Rajasthan, no amount is awarded. He is entitled for another Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, he is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 56,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment and award dated 18-12-2006 passed in M.V.C. No. 6485/2005 by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore and M.A.C.T., Bangalore, is hereby modified, by awarding enhanced compensation of Rs. 56,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Respondent No. 2/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.

Immediately on deposit being made by the insurer, the entire enhanced amount shall be disbursed in favour of the appellant. However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period.

Registry to transmit the case records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.