Harish S. vs Managing Director, KSRTC

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 17th January 2015, passed in MVC No. 4190/2013, by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,81,223/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 41 years, working as Sales Officer at Prathap Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Indore, earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 11:45 A.M., on 13-06-2013, when the appellant was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-09/U-915, on Kanakapura Main Road from North to South direction at extreme left side of the road, near Maya Indraprastha Apartment, at that time, a KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-42/F-144, driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the hind portion of the appellant''s vehicle. Due to the impact, the appellant fell down and the Bus dragged the appellant for a distance and front left wheel of the Bus ran over on the left leg of the appellant and he sustained crush injury.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 17th January, 2015. 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. 2,81,223/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent/Corporation, for considerable length of time.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri. A.S. Girish, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant, for the reason that the appellant was aged about 41 years and working as a Sales Officer in a Private Limited Company, earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and the accident has occurred in the year 2013. Therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant at least between Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and awarded reasonable compensation on account of the grievous injuries and disability sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. He further submitted that, on account of the grievous injuries sustained, the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of 14 days as in-patient in different Hospitals and the Doctor, after looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, assessed the permanent functional disability at 28% towards left lower limb and 10% towards whole body. The appellant has to pull on the life with the said disability for the rest of his life and he cannot do the work as he was doing earlier to the accident. On the advise of the Doctor, the appellant has taken follow-up treatment and on account of the permanent disability, the appellant has lost the future happiness, comforts and amenities in life. Further, it is stated that the appellant has to undergo one more operation and incur future medical expenses including incidental expenses. All these aspects of the matter have not been properly taken into consideration by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads.

Further, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 13-06-2013 and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 9% to 10% interest per annum may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation, inter alia, sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone and hence, interference in the same is unwarranted. However, he fairly submitted that rate of interest may be reasonably modified, in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,

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

After perusal of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 41 years. It is stated that he was working as a Sales Officer in Private Limited Company, earning Rs. 15,000/- as salary. But, to substantiate the same, he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was working in the said Company or the salary received by him. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has not assessed the monthly income of the appellant and not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period. The same cannot be sustained. The accident is of the year 2013 and the appellant was aged about 41 years and he would have been doing one or the other job to eke out his livelihood. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, considering the age, some avocation and also the year of accident, we assess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 7,000/- to meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, medical expenses and also the disability sustained by appellant, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,19,253/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions and Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses on the basis of the oral evidence of PW2, Doctor. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

However, so far as the compensation awarded injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and loss of amenities is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Further, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards disability and loss of income during treatment period. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained Type-3 B Compound Comminuted fracture left itbia and fibula and deep lacerated wound over right knee. The Doctor has assessed the functional disability at 28% and whole body disability at 10%. The appellant being aged about 41 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Further, we have already assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 7,000/- as discussed above. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for a period of 15 days in different Hospitals and during this period, he must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. Further, on account of the grievous injuries and permanent disability sustained, the appellant has to be under continuous medication. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, functional and whole body disability assessed by Doctor, nature and duration of treatment undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards injury pain and sufferings as against Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 7,000/-; Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal and Rs. 21,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month for a period of three months; and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards disability, as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under these two heads.

Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 4,50,253/- as against Rs. 2,81,223/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,69,030/-.

Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellant, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 13-06-2013. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum, on the enhanced compensation.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 17th January 2015, passed in MVC No. 4190/2013, by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,50,253/- as against Rs. 2,81,223/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows:

There would be enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,69,030/- with 9% interest per annum.

The respondent/Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,69,030/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

On such deposit by the Corporation, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 69,030/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately on deposit by the Corporation.

Office to draw award, accordingly.