Indiraj vs Chandrashekara Setty and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 27.1.2014, passed in MVC. No. 476/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT, Chikmagalur, (for short, Tribunal''). By the impugned judgment and award the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,110/- with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till date of realization on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident dated 25.5.2011. The claimant has filed this appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years, prosecuting I year ITI and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. When things stood thus, he met with an accident on 25.5.2011 at about 3.20 pm., when he was proceeding on Bajaj Discover Motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-18/U-3287 as a pillion rider, near Gadikal Jattinamakki on Thirthahalli - Koppa road, as the rider of motor cycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed the motor cycle against a stone on the road side. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries to his left leg, face, nose and right cheek and also to his head. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Thirthahalli Government Hospital and after first-aid he was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal. In KMC Hospital he undergone treatment as an inpatient from 25.5.2011 to 13.6.2011 for a period of 19 days. During the treatment period, he suffered pain and mental agony and also incurred expenses towards medicine, incidental charges, conveyance, food and nourishment. Due to the grievous injuries he could not attend the college for a period of 2 to 3 months."

We have heard Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 -insurance company.

The submission of Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset is that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards conveyance and nourishing food, attendant charges and loss of marriage prospects and what is awarded towards injury, pain and agony, disability, discomfort and future medical expenses is inadequate. To substantiate his contentions, he has taken us through the evidence of Doctor - CW. 1 and submitted that on account of the injuries he had undergone one surgery and another oral surgery. He has sustained 10% physical disability to the left lower limb and there is 13% restriction in left hip movement and because of the said disability, he has to suffer pain and agony, discomfort and unhappiness throughout life. He submits that there is disfiguration in the face on account of the accident, which would come in the way of his marriage prospects. These aspects of the matter have not been looked into nor considered by the Tribunal nor awarded reasonable compensation. He further submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is on lower side for an accident of the year 2011 and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation and rate of interest.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent inter-alia contended and sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stating that the same is passed after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation under all the heads. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 19 years, studying in I year ITI and hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is further not in dispute that he met with a road traffic accident that occurred on 25.5.2011 and on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries and undergone treatment in the Hospital as inpatient for a period of 19 days. During the said period of hospitalization, he had also undergone one surgery and another oral surgery and on account of which, he suffered discomfort, unhappiness during the treatment period and he might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The doctor - CW.1 who has examined the appellant has assessed the physical disability at 10% to the left lower limb and stated that there is 13% restriction in the left hip movement. It is also evident from the wound certificate that there is disfiguration in the face of the appellant on account of the accident, which may come in the way of his marriage prospects. Further, the doctor has opined that the appellant may require another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards future treatment.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated supra and after re-appreciation of the evidence available on record and the documents at Exs. P4 and P6, wound certificate and discharge summary, we can safely redetermine the compensation as under:

We award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nutritious food and attendant charges. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects as against Rs. 40,000/-. Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 82,109/-towards medical expenses, which is as per the medical bills does not call for interference.

Therefore, the appellant is entitled for total compensation under different heads as follows :

In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 2,87,109/- as against Rs. 1,82,110/-awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of Rs. 1,04,999/-.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to interest at 9% p.a., on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization as the accident is of the year 2011, in view of catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 27.1.2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 476/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT, Chikmagalur, is hereby modified awarding additional compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,04,999/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The second respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,04,999/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and award.

Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 10 years and renewable for 5 years and he is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.

Remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately on deposit by the second respondent - insurance company.

Draw the award, accordingly.