AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.
The appellants in the above appeals are the claimants in M.V.C. Nos. 2407 and 2408 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hukkeri, Sitting at Gokak (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'', for short). Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 06.07.2012 the claimants are seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
In the above appeals, the common judgment passed by the Tribunal has been challenged. Hence, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
The appellants/claimants in these appeals had filed claim petitions contending that on 24.03.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., while they were going from Masaguppi to Yogikolla village in a maxi cab bearing registration No. KA-40/357, due to rash and negligent driving of the said maxi cab, it met with an accident and toppled down. Due to the said accident, they sustained grievous injuries. They took treatment in Dr. Umaram''s Hospital. The claimant in M.V.C. No. 2407/2011 sustained injuries to her spinal cord and took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 15 days. The claimant in M.V.C. No. 2408/2011 sustained injuries like closed fracture lower end and radius and ulna right side and contusion over chest and took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 6 days. They claimed that prior to the accident, they were working as milk vendors and also were doing the work of tailoring, and due to the injuries suffered by them in the accident, they cannot do the work as they were doing earlier and, as such, sought for compensation.
The owner of the vehicle admitted the accident. He, however, denied the allegations with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the maxi cab. He disputed the age, occupation, income of the claimants and the nature of the accident. He contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was exorbitant. He further contended that since the driver of the maxi cab was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company the insurer was liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal or the claimant petitions as against him.
The respondent-insurance company filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petitions. The insurer contended that the maxi cab was carrying excess passengers, that the driver of the max cab was not having valid and effective driving licence and there being violation of the conditions of the policy, the insurer was not liable to compensate the claimants and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined themselves as P.Ws. 1 and 2, the doctor, who treated them, as P.W. 3 and got marked the documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 29. Common evidence was recorded in respect of both the claim petitions.
The Tribunal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot panchanama, MVI report and copy of FIR, held that due to rash and negligent driving of the maxi cab the accident had occurred and the claimants were entitled for the compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration the wound certificate produced by the claimant, the evidence of the doctor, who had treated the claimant and assessed the disability to an extent of 8% to the whole body, and taking into consideration the injury sustained by the claimant to spinal cord, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,600/- insofar as M.V.C. No. 407/2011 was concerned. Insofar as the claimant in M.V.C. No. 2408/2011 was concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the fracture of lower end and radius and ulna right side and contusion over chest, the period of hospitalisation i.e. as an inpatient for 6 days, the disability assessed by the doctor to an extent of 8% and considering the age of the claimant as 45 years, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,500/- with 6% interest. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred these appeals.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
The record clearly discloses that due to the rash and negligent driving of the maxi cab, it met with the accident on 24.03.2011 at 11.00 a.m. on Sangankeri-Yadwad road.
In M.F.A. No. 20329/2013
In the accident, the claimant (in M.V.C. No. 2407/2011) suffered injury to the spinal cord i.e. contusion neck/quadriparesis and edema of spinal cord at C5C6/diffuse disc bulge at C5 C6. She took treatment in the hospital for a period of 15 days. The doctor, who treated the claimant, has deposed that in view of the fracture of spinal cord, the percentage of disability sustained by her was to an extent of 30%. The Tribunal taking into consideration the disability to the whole body to an extent of 8%, the age of the claimant as 40 years has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 3,600/- towards attendant charges and special diet. Further, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income as Rs. 3,750/- per annum, the disability to the whole body at 8% and applying multiplier ''15'' has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- towards permanent disability, loss of future income and loss of amenities. In all, a sum of Rs. 92,600/- with interest at 6% per annum.
Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 24.03.2011. A middle-aged women engaged in milk vending and also doing tailoring work would earn more than Rs. 6,000/- per month and, therefore, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,750/- is on the lower side and is less than the minimum wage paid to a coolie. Hence, taking into consideration the income as Rs. 6,000/- per month, the disability at 8% and applying multiplier of 15, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 86,400/- towards loss of future income. No compensation is awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period. She is entitled to a sum of Rs. 18,000/- at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month for a period of three months.
The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs. 20,000/- is on the lower. In view of the injury to the spinal cord and the pain that she must have undergone, she is entitled for another sum of Rs. 10,000/-.
The attendant charges and nutrition charges of Rs. 3,600/- awarded is on the lower side. She was inpatient for a period of 15 days. The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on the said head.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses and no interference is called with the same.
In all, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,84,400/- as against Rs. 92,600/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.
In M.F.A. No. 20330/2013
Insofar as the claimant in MVC No. 2408/2011 is concerned, she has sustained closed fracture lower end and radius and ulna right side, contusion chest. She took treatment as an inpatient for a period of six days. The doctor, who has treated assessed the disability to the extent of 30%. Taking into consideration income of Rs. 3,750/-, assessing the permanent disability to an extent of 8%, taking into consideration multiplier 14, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,400/- towards loss of future earning capacity and the same is on the lower side.
The claimant is aged 40 years, working as a milk vendor and doing tailoring work. The accident occurred in the years 2011. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income as Rs. 6,000/- per month, applying the multiplier 14 and taking into consideration the permanent disability at 8% ought to have awarded 80,640/- as against Rs. 50,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, Rs. 80,640/- is awarded towards loss of future income.
Further, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is also on the lower side. The claimant is entitled for another sum of Rs. 15,000/-, in addition to Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering.
Though the claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of 8%, loss of amenities has not been awarded. Hence, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities.
No income has been awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period. Because of the fracture sustained by the claimant in the accident, she must have been out of employment for a period of three months. Hence, she is entitled to a sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of earning during laid up period.
The attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges awarded is on the lower side. The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as against Rs. 1,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In all, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,72,540/- as against Rs. 75,500/-. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs. 97,040/- with interest at 6% per annum.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
Appeals are allowed in part. The appellant in M.F.A. No. 20329/2013 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 91,800/- with interest at 6%. The appellant in M.F.A. No. 20330/2013 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 97,040/- with interest at 6%.
Out of the enhanced compensation 50% of the amount with accrued interest be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years in the names of the appellants in both the appeals are concerned.