Mahabaleshwara Bhat vs Aarief

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. This is a claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 18/01/2005 passed in MVC No. 1068/2003, by the District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 2,07,180/- awarded under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., on Rs. 1,92,180/- from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate. In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 46 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as a School Teacher in Milagres High School at Kallianpur of Udupi Taluk. That on 6.7.2003 appellant was coming in his Scooter bearing Reg. No. KA.20.J. 19 from Kallianpur towards Santhekatte and when he reached near Bharath Tile Factory at Ambagilu on N.H. 17, at that time, the driver of Bajaj Mini Door Tempo bearing Reg. No. KA.20.A.2122 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against his vehicle. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to HITECH hospital at Udupi, where he took treatment as inpatient for 17 days, underwent emergency debridement plus K wire stabilization of CMC joints and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment."

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the physical disability at 80% to left upper limb and at 20% to the whole body. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 2,07,180/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., on Rs. 1,92,180/- from the date of petition till realization.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for Insurer.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and the same is liable to be enhanced. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken us through the evidence of the Doctor and submitted that, the Doctor has specifically deposed that replacement of shoulder is absolutely required in future and chances of vascular necrosis of head is around 90 to 100% and appellant cannot drive a vehicle and in view of 80% disability of the left upper limb, it will be difficult for him in his day to day life. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for insurer, inter alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. However, after careful perusal of para-13 of the judgment, he fairly submitted that reasonable amount may be awarded towards injury, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness in accordance with law by modifying the impugned judgment and award.

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

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, appellant was aged about 46 years and working as Teacher Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the age, occupation, nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature and duration of the treatment, has justified in awarding Rs. 56,480/- towards medical and treatment charges, Rs. 15,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle, Rs. 11,400/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs. 24,300/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and therefore, it does not call for interference.

However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and what is awarded is on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. After careful perusal of the evidence of the Doctor which has been discussed in para-13 of the judgment, it emerges that, appellant has sustained permanent disability of left upper limb at 80% and it will be great difficulty for the appellant in his day-to-day life though it will not come in the way of his profession, but he cannot drive vehicles. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered by the Tribunal. Taking these aspects into consideration, we award another sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 18/01/2005 passed in MVC No. 1068/2003, by the District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, stands modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, the entire enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant.

Draw the award, accordingly.