M.G. Srinarth vs B.D. Jagadeesh and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 19th July 2012, passed in MVC No. 883/2011, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,84,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 12,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant to be aged about 50 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 530 P.M., on 24-04-2007, when the appellant was proceeding on his TVS Victor bearing Registration No. KA-14/Q-7355 along with his wife on convent road, while they were proceeding on Convent road, near Vidya Bhavana, Shivamogga, due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of another Motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-15/H-0820, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga and then shifted to Nanjappa Hospital. Thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he was shifted to VOCKHARDT Hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment as in-patient.

It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above and for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.

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. 12,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 19th July, 2012. 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. 2,84,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The principal submission canvassed by Shri. M.V. Maheswarappa, Learned counsel appearing for appellant is that, the Tribunal committed grave error, resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice, in as much as it has failed to award any compensation towards loss of future income on account of the grievous injuries sustained and also the disability. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through the evidence of the Doctor, who on examination has assessed 46% functional disability in respect of right lower limb and 15% towards physical whole body. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income on the ground that the appellant has sustained only physical disability and not occupational disability. But the said disability also persists through out his life and the appellant has to suffer future unhappiness and discomfort and he cannot do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier and therefore, he submits that the Tribunal totally lost sight of this aspect and erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is,

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

After perusal of the entire material available on file, it reveals that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, comminuted supracondylar fracture of right femur, fracture of right patella, and fracture of right scapular neck. The Doctor has assessed the permanent disability towards right lower limb at 45% and physical permanent whole body disability at 15%. The appellant has also underwent surgeries and has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants. Because of the nature of injuries and the disability, the appellant is not in a position to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier and he has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Further, the vehicle of the appellant is also damaged to some extent. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, operations undergone, functional and whole body disability assessed by Doctor, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 1,48,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, X 15,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs. 1,000/- towards repair charges of the vehicle. Hence, interference in the same is not called for.

Further, the Tribunal is also justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future income, on the ground that the appellant has not sustained any occupational disability so as to loose future income and that 15% disability suffered is only physical disability and the appellant being a businessman does not have to face any loss of future income. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded by Tribunal for not awarding compensation towards loss of future income is just and proper and does not call for interference. Further, it can be seen that the appellant has also not produced any credible documentary evidence to substantiate that he has suffered any loss of income on account of disability. Therefore, he is ''not entitled to any compensation under the said head.

Hence, having regard to totality of the case on hand, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.