Deepika vs Managing Director

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 17.07.2015 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) at Tumkur in MVC No.468/2013 whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,66,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a.

The brief facts of the case are that on 03.02.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., petitioner-claimant was proceeding in a two wheeler along with one Sujatha, pillion rider, when the motor bike reached National Highway-206 in front of New Extension Police Station, a bus bearing registration No.KA-42-F-433 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the two wheeler from the back side. As a result, motor bike fell down and claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumakuru and later shifted to Aditya Hospital for treatment. After recovering from the injuries, she has filed a claim petition before the MACT, Tumkur in MVC No.468/2013. To establish her case, she examined herself as PW.1 and examined Dr. Thyagaraj as PW.2 and got marked eighty one documents. On the other hand, Corporation examined one witness as RW.1 and has not got marked any documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,66,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Sri. Sunil K.N., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the time of the accident, claimant was aged about 25 years. She was working as a tailor and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She has examined Dr. Thyagara as PW.2. In his testimony, he has deposed that claimant has suffered 10% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of future earnings. Secondly, he has contended that due to the accident, claimant has suffered 10% whole body disability and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

Per contra, Smt. Nirmala .S, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that even though the claimant claimed that she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but she has not produced any document to prove her claim. Even though in the deposition, the doctor assessed 10% disability to the lower limb, the claimant has not produced any documents in order to prove that she has suffered any future loss of income due to disability. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not granting the compensation under the head loss of future income. She further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads is just and proper. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 03.02.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA-42-F-433. Due to the accident, claimant has suffered grievous injuries and she has undergone treatment in two different hospitals. She has examined Doctor as PW.2. In his testimony, he has deposed that the claimant has suffered permanent partial disability to the left leg i.e., 10% disability to the whole body. Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor, disability certificate at Ex.P.81 and discharge summary at Exs.P.7 to 9, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is not justified in not granting any compensation under the head Loss of income due to disability. Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor, I am of the opinion that 4% disability to the whole body has to be assessed. Even though the claimant has claimed that she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing tailoring work, but she has not produced any documents to establish the same. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2013, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.8,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the chart prepared by this Court, avocation and age of the claimant, I am of the opinion that monthly income of the claimant has to be considered as Rs.8,000/-. The multiplier applicable to the age group of claimant would be 18. Accordingly, loss of future income has been assessed as under:-

8000 x 12 x 18 x 4/100 = 69,120/-

Since the monthly income of the claimant is considered as Rs.8,000/-, loss of income during laid up period is enhanced from Rs.13,500/- to Rs.24,000/-.

Claimant has examined Dr. Thyagaraj as PW.2. In his deposition, he has deposed that claimant has suffered permanent partial disability to the left leg i.e., 10% disability to the whole body. She has to suffer lot of pain, discomfort and unhappiness throughout her life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities at Rs.20,000/- is on the lower side. The same is requires to be enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/-.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-

Compensation under different Heads

As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)

As awarded by this Court (Rs.)

Conveyance

10,000/-

10,000/-

Pain and agony

40,000/-

40,000/-

Attendant charges and nourishing food

10,000/-

10,000/-

Medical expenses

48,000/-

48,000/-

Loss of income

13,500/-

24,000/-

Future medical expenses

25,000/-

25,000/-

Loss of amenities and loss of expectation

20,000/-

35,000/-

Future loss of income

-

69,120/-

Total

1,66,500/-

2,61,120/-

The Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with an interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

The Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire compensation amount in favour of appellant on proper identification.