AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the claimant For enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
The brief facts of the case are; that on 15.10.2004 when the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw Bering registration No. KA 13 7838 near Lakshmivenkatashraras temple, a lorry bearing registration No. CPO 7369 cane in, a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw, as a result of which he sustained multiple fracture. Hence he made a claim petition before the MACT, Hassan seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,76,025/- and it rounded it of to Rs. 2,76,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident and liability of insurance company, the only point that remains for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lover side and therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enactment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
That after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the partial and pursing the judgment and award of the Tribunal I an of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not and proper it is en the lover aide and therefore it is required to be enhanced,
The claimant has sustained the following injuries:
spontaneous intracerabeller haemorrhage
Right internal capsule with intra ventricular extenuation
Frontal bona fracture
Fracture squamoun temporal bona
Fracture right petrous temporal bona
Fracture right aygomatio arch
fracture anterior, inferior and lateral wall of right maxillary sinus
Masel bone fracture
fracture vomer bone
10.Compound fracture right tibia
Proptosis of right eye
Mandibla fracture
The injuries sustained by him are evident from the wound certificate Ext.P3 and supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. The claimant was treated as an in-patient for about 26 days in D.G. Hospital, Padmanabhanagar Bangalore, P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant has stated that there Is disability of BOH to the limb and 35% to the whole body.
considering the nature of injuries, particularly 12 fractures in all, Rs. 75,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lover side and therefore, it deserves to be enhanced by another Rs. 25,000/- and I award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the said head.
The claimant has produced medical bills for Rs. 2,20,137/-. The Tribunal after carefully scrutinizing the same and excluding the amounts spent for some other purpose other than hospital and medical expenses has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,17,225/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the same is just and proper and it does not call for enhancement. At the same tine, it has committed an error in not awarding any amount of compensation towards incidental expenses. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- toward incidental expense such it conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and it is awarded.
Although the claimant has stated that by working as lorry driver and doing agriculture, ha was earning Rs. 3,000/- par month, the same is not established by adducing evidence. In the absence of proof of income, considering the age of the claimant and the year of accident as 2004, his income could be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- par month. The nature of injuries suggest that he must have been without employment for a period of 4 months and therefore, it is just and proper to award Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Despite awarding future loss of income, the claimant has to bear with the disability stated by the doctor to the limb and to the whole body and particularly, considering the does of vision in the right eye, it is just and proper to award a sun of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss o� amenities, discomfort and unhappiness in his future life as against Ra. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and it is awarded.
The claimant has in all sustained 12 fractures and there is loss of vision in the right eye. The doctor who is the CMO may not be an ophthalmologist. Still considering the nature of injuries particularly, loss of eye sight in the right aye, the disability stated by the doctor to the whole body at 35% appears to be just and proper and the Tribunal is not justified in wording cut the future loss of income, by considering the disability caused to the whole body at 10%, the future loss of income is required to be worked out as par the disability stated by the doctor to the whole body. Accordingly works out to Rs. 2,26,800/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 64,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Medical expanse Rs. 1,17,225/- Incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 12,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Future loss of income Rs. 2.26.800/- _______________ Total Rs. 5,26,025 _______________
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,26,025/- rounded of to Rs.5,26,000/- as against Rs. 2,7(5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be, invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the claimant in any sationalized/scheduled Bank for a period of 7 years and the remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to the released in his favour immediately after the deposit. No order as to costs.