H.C. Manjunath vs Chandru and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2011 passed in MVC No. 1963/2009 by the Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Even though the matter has come up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal below.

It is the case of the petitioner that when he was waiting for the bus on the left side road near Hongere Circle, Shanthigrama, Hassan, at that time the rider of the Hero Honda Bike bearing No. KA-12-H-4286 came from Shanthigrama side towards Hassan, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner which has resulted in grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan wherein he underwent surgery and took treatment for a period of one month. Thereafter as per the advice of the Doctor he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, and took treatment as inpatient for a period of 15 days. He has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, etc., Hence this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

The 1st respondent - owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed objections denying all the allegations made in the claim petition.

Based on the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:--

In order to establish his case, the claimant got examined himself as P.W. 1 and the Doctor as P.W. 2 and got marked the documents Exs. P.1 to P.20 (a). The respondent has neither adduced any evidence nor produced any documents. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has recorded a specific finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-12 H 4286 and the petitioner has sustained injuries and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. as compensation. Against the said impugned judgment and award, the petitioner has filed the present appeal for enhancement.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.

Sri Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and thereby granted compensation which is meager. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the disability, which the petitioner has sustained and pecuniary loss and loss of income and medical expenses. The Tribunal has not considered the oral and documentary evidence on record properly, therefore, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.

Per contra, Sri Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In view of the rival contentions urged the issue that arises for my consideration is

"1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding only Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation to the claimant, who sustained injuries in the accident?

Whether the petitioner has made out any case for enhancement of compensation?"

The material on record discloses that admittedly the respondent - Insurance Company has not filed any objections nor produced documents contrary to the material on record produced by the claimant - appellant. The claimant examined as P.W. 1 specifically stated on oath that he was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and he was hospitalized for 12 days. The wound certificate Ex. P.3 on record discloses that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:

"a. Tenderness TL spine grade - III both lower limb, urine incontinence (X-ray shows compression fracture L1)

b. Abrasion forearm

c. Abrasion right knee"

The above mentioned injury No. 1 is grievous in nature and rest of the injuries are simple in nature.

It is also not in dispute the claimant examined P.W. 2 - the Doctor who treated the claimant has specifically stated on oath that the petitioner sustained disability to the extent of 65%. The claimant also produced Exs. P8 to P18 RTC -extracts in respect of immovable property to show that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and Exs. P1 to P20A clearly discloses that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and he has proved the income. On contrary, the respondents have neither adduced any evidence nor produced any material documents. Therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and not justified, hence the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

After re-appreciating the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion, that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation under the following heads:--

In all the appellant is entitled to Rs. 3,20,000/- including the compensation already granted by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimant - appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, which shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award is modified. Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% of the amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the appellant in fixed deposit in any of the Nationalized Bank for a period of five years with liberty to the claimant-appellant to withdraw the periodical interest as and when it accrues. The remaining 50% of the compensation with proportionate interest shall be disbursed to the claimant-appellant.

Registry to draw the award accordingly.