G. Raman @ Ramanath vs Mrs. Padma M.V. and ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co., Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 23rd November 2011, passed in MVC No. 7345/2010, by the XXII A.C.M.M. & XXIV A.S.C.J., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 6,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 47 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 2:30 A.M., on 14-08-2010, when the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-03/EJ-4773, driven by his brother, on the left side of the ITPL Main road, in front of Sri Rama Way bridge, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Car bearing Registration No. KA-02/MC-465, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained fracture of pelvis, i.e. right S-1 joint disruption with pubic symphysis diastasis. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Vydehi Hospital, where he took treatment as in-patient and undergone surgery for external skeletal application and posterior percutaneous S-1 joint stabilization with screw and also second surgery of Ex-fixator removal and was also advised for physiotherapy.

It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 23rd November, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Shri. Harish, appearing for Shri. Muniyappa D. Naveen, learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of future income and what is awarded is only Rs. 46,000/- and the income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred during 2010. Therefore, he submits that reasonable monthly income may be re-assessed and reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified accordingly.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant, it reveals that the Tribunal has after assessing the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and RWs 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P11 and Exs. R1 to R5, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- with 6% interest after recording a finding of fact at paragraphs 15 to 20 of its judgment, having regard to the fact that appellant has sustained two injuries, viz. fracture of pelvis, i.e. right S-1 joint disruption with pubic symphysis diastasis and was treated as in-patient from 14-08-2010 to 30-09-2010 and the Doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 18%. Further, the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- assessed by Tribunal is just and proper for the reason that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his avocation. Therefore, in the absence of any credible documentary evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has re-assessed the whole body disability at 10% and awarded compensation towards loss of future earnings. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference.

Further, it can be seen that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of future income, loss of earnings during treatment period and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability is also just and proper. Further, the Tribunal is also justified in awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 67,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Hence, interference in the same is not called for.

The Tribunal, considering the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment, surgeries undergone, disability assessed by Doctor, etc. and the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- for the injuries sustained by appellant. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.