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 8th July 2011, passed in MVC No. 134/2009, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,75,900/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 63,54,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years and a coolie by profession and also doing milk vending business, owning two cows, earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 22:10 P.M., on 14- 10-2008, when the appellant was going back home along with a pillion rider, near Police Bhavan Road junction, Lalithamahal Road, Mysore City, after watching Yuva Dasara in the vehicle of his brother-in-law, i.e. TVS Victor bearing Registration No. KA-54/E-6438, at that time, a Car bearing Registration No. KA-09/M-6438 came from Kurubarahalli circle in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said TVS Victor as a result of which, the appellant and the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries on their body and they were immediately admitted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and the appellant took treatment as in-patient from the date of accident till 01-11-2008 on account of the permanent disability sustained and fracture of his right leg.
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. 63,54,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 8th July, 2011. 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. 1,75,900/- with interest at 6% 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 that the Tribunal grossly erred in not assessing the just and reasonable income of the appellant and submitted that appellant was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and a coolie by profession and also doing milk vending business by owning two cows and he has sustained injuries such as bleeding lacerated wound on the right knee, measuring 4 x 1 x .5 cm. bleeding lacerated wound on right leg in. middle 1/3rd 6 x 1 x .5 cm. with restricted mobility of right leg, bleeding lacerated wound on right dorsum of foot ms. 7 x 1.5 x .5 cm., abrasion on right temporal frontal area ms. 4 x 3 cm and because of the said injuries, he could not attend to his work for quite a long time. But, the Tribunal has not looked into all these aspects of the matter nor awarded reasonable compensation under injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability and loss of future income etc. Therefore, he submitted that the compensation is liable to be re-determined, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for third respondent/Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also considering each and every aspect, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all the heads. Hence, interference in the well considered judgment and award is uncalled for.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for third respondent/Insurer and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, it can be seen that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 19 years and a coolie by profession and also doing milk vending business. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 64,100/- towards medical expenses, 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, loss of income during treatment period, and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained bodily injuries, viz. bleeding lacerated wound on the right knee, measuring 4 x 1 x.5 cm. bleeding lacerated wound on right leg in middle 1/3rd 6 x 1 x .5 cm. with restricted mobility of right leg, bleeding lacerated wound on right dorsum of foot ms. 7 x 1.5 x .5 cm, abrasion on right temporal frontal area ms. 4 x 3 cm. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, the Doctor has assessed 51% disability in respect of right lower limb but has not assessed the whole body. But, the Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence of the appellant and also his avocation and other relevant aspects, has assessed the whole body permanent disability at 10%. The same, in our opinion is on the lower side and 1/3rd of 51�/comes to 17%. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries and functional disability assessed by Doctor, we re-assess the whole body disability at 17%, to meet the ends of justice. The appellant being aged about 19 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 three months. Further, it is seen that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at only Rs. 3,000/-. The same is OH the lower side and liable to be re-assessed. Having regard to the age, avocation and the year accident, we re-assess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4 000/-, to meet the ends of justice. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for quite a long period on account of the grievous injuries sustained, for nearly 17 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 19 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier applicable is ''18'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (2009 ACJ 1298). Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, functional and whole body disability, nature and duration of treatment undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against Rs. 20,000/-; Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 6,000/-; Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month for a period of three months as against Rs. 6,000/-; Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against Rs. 15,000/-; and Rs. 1,46,880/- (i.e. Rs. 4,000/- x 12 x ''18'' x 17/100) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 64,800/- 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 8th July 2011, passed in MVC No. 134/2009, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,77,980/- as against Rs. 1,75,900/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows:
The total compensation would workout to Rs. 2,77,980/- as against Rs. 1,75,900/-. The enhanced compensation would be Rs. 1,02,080/- with 6% interest per annum.
The third respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,02,080/-, 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, 50% shall be invested in the name of the appellant, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by ten years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining 50% shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award accordingly.