M.R. Manjunath vs Khaleem and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

Though this appeal is posted for further orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, this appeal is taken up for disposal.

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the impugned common judgment and award dated 09.07.2013 passed in MVC No. 181/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 2,31,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on account of the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident.

The brief facts of the case are:

"The appellant was aged about 30 years and an Agriculturist, earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. When things stood thus, that on 19.11.2011 at about 9.00 p.m., when the appellant along with other inmates was traveling in a Bus bearing registration No. KA 02/C 6212 from Hinyur to Dwaranakunte village, Sira Taluk, when they reached near Javanagondanahalli TJ'' turn on NH-4 road, the driver of a Lorry bearing registration No. KA 06/B 5915 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and dashed against the said Bus. Due to the impact, the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Hinyur, where he took first aid and later shifted to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga. He has undergone operation to his left leg in the said hospital. Rod and screws were fixed to left leg bone. He has taken treatment as inpatient from 09.03.2012 to 14.03.2012. Again, he was admitted to Adithya Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient from 12.07.2012 to 17.07.2012. He undergone operation for removal of rod and screws. As per Ex. P.21 - wound certificate, he has suffered injuries like CLW 2 x 1 cm. on left part of hip, CLW 2 x 1 cm on right ear, Crush injury left ankle and Swelling right ankle. As per the said wound certificate, injury Nos. 2 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury Nos. 1 and 4 are simple in nature. Totally, he was admitted for a period of three months and undergone several surgeries. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has spent huge amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and medical expenses. He has examined the doctor -PW.15, who has opined that the appellant is suffering from permanent disability at 57%. On account of the injuries sustained, the appellant was constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- against the respondents. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on the file allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs. 2,37,600/- with interest at 6% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented the instant appeal seeking enhancement contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate."

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Insurance Company for considerable length of time.

Sri Veerendra Pail, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury pain and sufferings, loss of future income, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and no compensation is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period. The appellant was admitted for a period of three months in the hospital as inpatient and had undergone several surgeries. The doctor who treated the appellant is also examined and he has opined that that the appellant has sustained 57% permanent disability and cannot do the work as he was doing earlier. But, the tribunal has assessed only 14% disability to whole body. He further contends that the appellant has to suffer loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness throughout his life. He has taken follow up treatment and bed rest for a period of six months. These aspects have not been looked into nor considered by the tribunal while awarding compensation. The appellant was earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. but the tribunal has taken only a meager amount of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as notional income which is on the lower side and therefore, he prays to modify the judgment and award by awarding just and reasonable compensation.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the insurance company inter alia submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. The compensation awarded is just and proportionate to the injuries suffered by the appellant, and hence, interference by this Court is uncalled for.

After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the point that arise for our consideration is:

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

After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, what emerges is that, the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 41,000/- towards pain and sufferings. He has undergone three surgeries and undergone treatment for a period of three months in the hospital as an inpatient and might have suffered pain and agony during the treatment period. So, we deem it fit to award Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

The Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness in life and loss of income during laid up period. The appellant was aged about 30 years and he has to undergo discomforts and unhappiness throughout his life. The disability stated in the wound certificate is permanent in nature and it cannot be cured in future. It is not possible for the appellant to do his work as he was doing earlier. He has also taken bed rest for a period of six months as per the advise of the doctor. The tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,000/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2011 and the appellant was an agriculturist. Therefore, we can safely re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Accordingly, we award Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and Rs. 36,000/-(Rs. 6,000/- x 6) towards loss of income during laid up period.

The doctor has assessed the disability at 57% on account of injuries suffered in the accident. The appellant had suffered mal unit of fracture of lower 1/4th left tibia and fibula with deformities signs of fusion of ankle joint. The tribunal has erred in assessing disability at 14% towards whole body. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we re-assess the disability at 15% towards the whole body, to meet the ends of justice. We have already assessed the income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. The appropriate multiplier is ''17'' for his age, being 30 years and therefore, the loss of future income comes to Rs. 1.83,600/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 15 x 17/100) as against Rs. 81,600/- awarded by the tribunal.

The tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 13,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. He was in patient for 3 months. During this period, the appellant might have spent huge sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from medical expenses. The doctor has opined that the injured is finding difficulty in walking and attend to day to day work. Having regard to the evidence of the doctor and as per the oral and documentary evidence, we deem it fit to award Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges.

The tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 1,02,000/- towards medical expenses, as per evidence of the doctor and hence, it does not call for interference.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 09.07.2013 passed in MVC No. 181/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, is hereby modified.

The appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 4,76,600/- as against Rs. 2,37,600/-. The break-up is as follows:

The enhancement amount comes to Rs. 2,39,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in F.D. in the name of appellant, in any nationalised or scheduled or grameena bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for 5 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.

Remaining Rs. 39,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately on deposit of the sum by R2-Insurance Company.

Office to draw the award, accordingly.