Govindamma vs Shiva Neshan and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the common judgment and award dated 21/02/2013, passed in MVC No. 382/2011, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-18), (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal'' for short).

The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,74,132/- (wrongly shown as Rs. 3,64,132/-) as under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 42 years at the time of the accident. She was hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as maid servant and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. That on 22.10.2010 at about 2.30 a.m. the appellant along with others were traveling in APSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. AP.28.Z.2419 from Chittoor to Bangalore on NH.4 road and when the said bus came near Gangapura, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA.04.B.5697 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said bus. Due to which, appellant and others suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, she was taken to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, then she was shifted to Rajshekar hospital, Bangalore, where she took treatment as inpatient for 22 days, undergone three surgeries and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, she has taken bed rest and follow up treatment."

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, she has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 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 and awarded a sum Rs. 3,74,132/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal so far as it relates to injury, pain and sufferings, towards loss of amenities and towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, the appellant has presented this appeal.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and suffering, towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he has pointed out and submitted that, as per the evidence of the Doctor, PW6, appellant has suffered fracture of both bones and sustained 3 grievous injuries and taken treatment as inpatient for 22 days and she suffers from 15% disability and she was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as she was working as maid servant and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken disability at 15% instead of 10%. Due to which, she has underwent lot of pain and agony, spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out her life, it would affect her earning capacity and now she is not in a position to do her work as she was doing earlier. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under these heads. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for R2-insurer, inter- alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After careful consideration of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P22-wound certificate are not in dispute.

The Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,21,532/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 8,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 75,600/- towards loss of future income and therefore, it does not call for interference.

However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and towards loss of amenities and therefore, it needs to be enhanced reasonably. Admittedly, it emerges from the evidence of the Doctor-PW6, that appellant has undergone three surgeries and he has assessed the disability at 15%. Ex. P23 discloses that right leg wound debridement, external fixator application, primary approximation of right ankle done, skin grafting of right food and left heal right great toe amputation was done. During the said period, she might have suffered lot of mental pain and agony, the disability is permanent in nature and she has to pull on with the said disability through out her life and it would affects her earning capacity and also affects her happiness in future life and she might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and the same has to be compensated reasonably. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 21/02/2013, passed in MVC No. 382/2011, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-18), stands modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 55,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, the enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant.

Draw the award, accordingly.