AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.
It is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are:
That on 05.07.2006 when the claimant was standing by the side of road to cross Bannerghatta road in front of Mantri Residency a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA. 05 EL -4135 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital and taken treatment there. Hence she filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, SCCH-15 (Tribunal) seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned judgment and award awarded her a compensation of Rs. 2,13,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, she has come up in appeal seeking enhancement.
As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident, and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only point remains for my consideration is:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or it calls for enhancement?
Sri Girimallaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
Per contra, Sri S.T. Rajashekara, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement and therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.
The claimant has sustained the following injuries:
1) Compound type I comminuted fracture of 1/3rd of both bones of right leg;
2) Compound type I fracture of right humerus;
3) Compound type I fracture of both bones of 1/3rd right forearm;
4) Lacerated wound over left temporal region.
The injuries sustained by the claimant are evident from the wound certificate Ex. P4, case record Ex P 7 and X ray Ex. P 8. supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively. The medical record shows that she was admitted at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 5.7.2006 and underwent operation with internal fixation to reduce the fracture of right humerus and both bones of right forearm. She was discharged on 24.7.2006 and continued follow up treatment. PW2 Dr. Prakashappa in his evidence has stated that the claimant suffered permanent disability of 80% to the limb and 26.6% to the whole body.
Considering the nature of fractures Rs. 80.000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings is just and reasonable and it does not call for enhancement.
The claimant has produced medical bills for Rs. 3,528/-. The Tribunal considering the same has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. If Rs. 3,528/- is deducted from Rs. 10,000/- towards medical bills only Rs. 6,572/remains for conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. The claimant was inpatient in the hospital for 19 days. Considering the same it is on the lower side. Therefore I award Rs. 15,000/- towards medical and other incidental charges as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. It is stated that she was doing the job of preparing agarbathi. The accident is of the year 2006. Considering the same the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,500/- is on the lower side. Even in the absence of proof the income of the claimant could be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. If so, loss of income during laid up period works out to Rs. 27,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 22,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Considering the nature of injuries and disability stated by the doctor Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is on the lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by another sum of Rs. 10,000/- and award Rs. 25,000/- under the said head.
PW2 the doctor who treated the claimant has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 80% to the limb and 26.6% to the whole body and the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing disability at 20%. Therefore loss of future income works out to Rs. 1,34.064/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 26.6% x 12 x 14) and it is awarded as against Rs. 78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,000/- towards future medical expenses for removal of implants which is just and reasonable and it does not call for enhancement.
Thus in all the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,89,064/- as against Rs. 2.13,500/-awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,564/- from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,564/-50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the claimant in F.D. in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of seven years and remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimant after depositing the same by the Insurance Company.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. No order as to cost.