AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 4th June 2011, passed in MVC No. 1034/2009, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davangere, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,45,400/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 50 years and agriculturist by profession and also doing coolie work, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 11:15 A.M., on 09-05-2009, in between Muttugadur Sasalu Railway Station, when the appellant was proceeding by the left side of the road as a pedestrian, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KA-16/A-3082 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the appellant. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and fractures and was immediately, shifted to S.S. Hospital, Davangere and thereafter to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, where he took treatment as in-patient by spending huge amount.
It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 16th November 2006. 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. 2,45,400/- with interest at 7% 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 third respondent/Insurance Company for considerable length of time.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted at the outset that the Tribunal grossly erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant for the reason that the appellant was aged about 50 years, and an agriculturist by profession and also doing coolie work. The accident has occurred during 2009. Therefore, the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and liable to be re assessed. Further, he submitted that the on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the appellant has taken treatment as in-patient for a period of 18 days in the Hospital and also undergone one surgery and the Doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 90%, but the Tribunal grossly erred in re-assessing the whole body disability at 30%. The same is liable to be further reassessed. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards the other heads is on the lower side and therefore, reasonable enhancement may be made, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, and also considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone and also the disability assessed by Tribunal. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is unwarranted.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer 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 is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
After going through the entire material available on file, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 50 years and an agriculturist by profession and also doing coolie work. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, as per the medical bills and prescriptions. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.
However, so far as the compensation awarded under injury, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, loss of future earnings and loss of income during treatment period is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, as per Wound Certificate, at Ex. P8, the appellant has sustained L1 burst fracture vertebrae and paraplegia and the said injury is stated to be grievous in nature. Further, it can be seen that due to paraplegia, the physical activities of the appellant are also affected to some extent and the same cannot be discarded. PW2, Doctor has deposed that he subjected the appellant for surgery for insertion f screws and he had burst fracture L1 vertebrae with paraplegia and that the appellant has inability to stand or sit, severe weakness of both lower limbs, decreased sensation in both lower limbs, and loss of control over passing urine and stools and also partial movement in the left hip and non-functioning of knee joints, loss in both lower limbs to an extent of 50% in voluntary passing of urine and stools and accordingly, assessed the permanent whole body disability at 90%. But, the Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence of the appellant and also his avocation and other relevant aspects and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, has re-assessed the whole body permanent disability at 30%. The same, in our opinion is just and proper and we accept the same. The appellant being aged about 50 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Because of the injuries sustained, he must have been away from work for a period of not less than six months. Further, it can be seen that the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and ''liable to be re-assessed. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and the year accident, we re-assess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,500/-, to meet the ends of justice. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for nearly 18 days. 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. Since the appellant was aged about 50 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, disability, and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against Rs. 30,000/-; Rs. 27,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month for a period of six months; Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against Rs. 10,000/-; and Rs. 2,10,600/- (i.e. Rs. 4,500/- x 12 �'' 13'' � 30/100) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 1,40,400/- awarded by Tribunal. 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 4th June 2011, passed in MVC No. 1034/2009, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davangere, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,12,600/- as against Rs. 2,45,400/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus the enhanced compensation would work out to Rs. 1,67,200/-. The break-up is as follows:
The total compensation would workout to Rs. 4,12,600/- as against Rs. 2,45,400/-. The enhanced compensation would be Rs. 1,67,200/- with 6% interest per annum.
The third respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,67,200/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
On such deposit by the Insurance Company, 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 another five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 67,200/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.