G. Nagaraju vs H.S. Manohar and The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patel, J.—This appeal by the Claimant is arising out of the impugned common. Judgment and Award dated 02/05/2005 passed in MVC No. 707/2003 on the file of the XII Additional Judge Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore ''(SCCH-8), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

By its common Judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,38,000/- with interest: at; 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant is claiming that he was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident, agriculturist by profession and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 1.00 p.m., on 28.8.2002 the appellant along with other persons was travelling in the bus bearing No. TN.47.A.599 towards Mayasandra from Seegehalli village and when the bus came near Dodderi village, Kalaghaitammana temple, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to over speed, it turtled to the right side of the road, due to which, he sustained fracture of right ankle, fracture of left leg, fracture of right hand and severe head injuries. On account of the injuries, he has taken treatment at NIMHANS and Chaya Hosptial, Bangalore for 27 days as inpatient, thereafter, bed rest and follow up treatment and spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability., The Doctor has assessed the disability at 51% to the whole body. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part, awarding a sum Rs. 2,38,000/-as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. Not: being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for second respondent.

The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Shripad V. Shastri at file outset is that, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment and towards future medical expenses and therefore, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards the same. Further, he submitted that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and towards loss of future income is on lower side and therefore, it needs to be enhanced. It is the case of the appellant that, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 51% to the whole body, but the Tribunal without'' assigning any valid reasons, has assessed the permanent disability at 20% to the whole body and therefore, it is liable to be modified. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned Judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding just and reasonable compensation.

As against, this, learned counsel for the second respondent, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award, passed by the Tribunal. Further, he submitted that, the Tribunal after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for, However, he fairly submitted that, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during the laid up period and towards future medical expenses and the compensation awarded towards loss of amenities and towards loss of future income is on lower sight and the same be modified in accordance with law.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the materials available on file, including the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

It emerges from records that, the ''Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards pain, agony and sufferings and Rs. 65,000/- towards medical expenses as per the medical bills produced including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for.

However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during the laid-up period and towards loss of future medical expenses and it needs to the awarded. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and towards loss of future income is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. It is not in dispute that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 27 days thereafter, follow up treatment for three months. during the said period he might have lost his income as he could not have attended his work. In view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 51% to the whole body as per ALIMCO Manual. But the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the disability at 20% to the whole body without assigning any reasons. Therefore, we accept the disability assessed by the Doctor at 51% to the whole body considering the age, avocation of the appellant as there is limitation of movements of ankle and knee joints and he being an agriculturist he is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is on lower side and requires to be modified. It is not in dispute that, claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident, and taking into consideration his age, occupation and year of the accident, we re-assess his income at if Rs. 3,500/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. The claimant is aged about 35 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be ''16''. Further, as per the evidence of the Doctor, the appellant has, to under go two minor surgeries and for that he may incur some reasonable amount. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 10,500/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for three months at the rate of Rs. 3,500/-per month, Rs. 40.000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 20,000/ Rs. 3 42,720/- Rs. 3,500/- x 12 x 16 x 51/100=3 42,720/-) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 1,08,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses. In all, the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 5,13,220/- instead of Rs. 2,38,000/- and the break- up is as follows:

Towards pain and sufferings

Rs. 45,000/-

Towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges

Rs. 65,000/-

Towards loss of income during the period of treatment

Rs. 10,500/-

Towards loss of future income

Rs. 3,42,720/-

Towards loss of amenities

Rs. 40,000/-

Towards future medical expenses

Rs. 10,000/-

Total

Rs. 5,13,220/-

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned common judgment and award dated 2nd May 2005 passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to M.V.C. No. 707/2003 stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,75,220/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realisation.

The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,75,220/- with interest, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

On such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with accrued interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant, for a period of five years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it and the remaining sum of Rs. 75,220/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.