GOPALAIAH @ GOPAL vs H.S.MANJUNATH & ANR.

Appellant is the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 06.05.2010 made in MVC No.8430/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as ''the tribunal'' for short), Bengaluru, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 10.08.2008 at about 10:30 p.m., while he was waiting for the bus on the left side of the Sondekoppa circle on Bengaluru - Tumakuru highway, a Toyota Quails vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09-N-125 came from Nelamangala side towards Sondekoppa road in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 20 days. He has spent a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical expenditure. Prior to the accident, he was working as a driver and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. In view of the injuries he sustained in the accident, he became permanently disabled to do the work as he was doing earlier. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.

In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, the insurance company entered appearance and defended the case by filing written statement.

After trial, the tribunal held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the Toyota Quails, the accident occurred and the claimant has sustained injuries and he is entitled for compensation.

With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained crush degloving injury to left forearm, wrist with cut radial, artery, median nerve, radial nerve. The Doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 32% to the particular limb and 11% to the whole body. Though the claimant claims that he was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by doing driver work, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects, has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m., taking the disability to an extent of 5% to the whole body and applying the multiplier ''16'' awarded a sum of Rs.38,400/-towards loss of future income and in all, a sum of Rs.1,81,152/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

Smt. Hamsa V.Raj, for Sri. Sumanth L.B. the advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is contrary to law and the income of the claimant assessed by the tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month while awarding the compensation is too meager. Though, the doctor assessed the disability to an extent of 11% to the whole body, the tribunal has taken 5% only to the whole body without assigning any reason. Hence, she sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, Sri E.S.Indiresh, advocate appearing for respondent No.2 argued in support of the judgment and award and contended that the tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation and sought for dismissal of the same.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award as well as oral and documentary evidence.

The issue in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned. The occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute. Though, the claimant claims that he was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by doing driver work, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month which is too meager. Even for the daily wage workers working in various Government Departments, the income is being taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, it is just and appropriate to assess the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month. Though, the doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 11% to the whole body, the tribunal has taken only 5% which is contrary to law. The doctor who is an expert in the field has assessed the disability of the claimant and without assigning any reason the tribunal cannot reduce the disability from 11% to 5% to the whole body. Hence, taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month, disability at 11% to the whole body and as he was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident, applying multiplier of ''16'', the compensation towards loss of future income would works out to Rs.95,040/- as against Rs.38,400/- awarded by the tribunal. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of amenities of life is on the lower side. The claimant has to lead his remaining life with the disability he has suffered due to the accident. Hence, he is entitled for another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.66,640/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 06.05.2010 made in MVC No.8430/2008 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru is modified and the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.66,640/- in addition to a sum of Rs.1,81,152/- awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.