Jagannath vs Nageshwarappa

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

The appellant having sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident, filed a claim petition before MACT, Gulbarga seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment, has awarded a sum of Rs.99,400/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the sum awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on 26.04.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-21/Y-2654 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?"

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and is on the lower side and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is deserved to be enhanced.

As per wound certificate Ex.P-20, the appellant-claimant has sustained following injuries:

"Compression fracture of D-9 and D-11 vertebrae and other simple injuries."

By perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal it is found that the claimant-appellant was directed to be examined by Medical Board and on clinical and radiological examination of the claimant by the Board it is stated that he has suffered disability of 20% to the whole body.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by him and duration of treatment undergone by him on two different occasions in two different private hospitals, Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and therefore we enhance it by another Rs.30,000/- and award Rs.50,000/- under this head.

He claims to have been working as Mason but has not established the same by producing any evidence. In the absence of proof of income, considering his age as 26 years, year of accident as 2011 and avocation as a daily wager, his income assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month by the Tribunal is just and proper. Nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of four months. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 18,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 13,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness that he has to suffer in his future life Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

That on clinical and radiological examination of the claimant by the Medical Board it has been stated that he has suffered disability of 20% to the whole body. If that is so, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the disability caused to whole body at 5% without assigning any reasons to that effect. The disability stated by the Board at 20% to the whole body is to be taken for computing loss of future income. His income is assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/-. Multiplier applicable to his age group is ''17''. Therefore, loss of future income works out to Rs. 1,83,600/- (Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 20/100 x 17) and it is awarded as against Rs.45,900/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Thus, the appellant is entitled to following compensation:

Thus the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,11,600/- as against Rs.99,400/-awarded by the Tribunal and is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,12,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,12,200/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The insurance company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant. From out of the additional compensation amount, 75% with proportionate interest is to be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the claimant in any Nationalized bank/Scheduled Bank/Grameen Bank/Post Office for a period of 5 years with a right of option for the claimant to withdraw interest periodically. Remaining 25% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in his favour.

It is further made clear that the Tribunal while releasing the remaining amount in favour of claimant is also directed to issue FD slips to the claimant so that he can withdraw the FD amount on maturity and the Bank/the post office in which the FD will be invested is also directed to release FD on maturity without insisting for further orders from the Tribunal.

Office to draw up the award accordingly.

No order as to costs.