Muddu Madhaiah vs Mohammed Atiq and Others

Rathnakala, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd October 2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 408/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-IV and Additional M.A.C.T., Mysore (''the Tribunal'' for short) being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Facts in brief:

"The appellant/claimant on 17.10.2011 at 2.45 p.m., while walking in front of Sujatha factory on Nanjangud-Gundlupet road was hit by the offending vehicle/Tata India car bearing registration No. KA-09/B-4112 driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Consequently, he suffered grievous injures and was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore; from there to NIMHANS, Bangalore. He was working as Assistant Marketing Officer earning Rs. 15,674/-per month from his salary and Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from agricultural income. Due to the accident, he was not in a position to work as earlier and filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs against the driver, owner and insurer of Tata Indica car."

The owner remained exparte. The driver and the insurer contested the petition. After holding enquiry, the Tribunal on an overall consideration of the material on record and on giving audience to the parties allowed the petition partly against owner and insurer. Though the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 47,000/-, attributed 20% of contributory negligence on the claimant himself and ordered proportionate compensation of Rs. 37,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Dissatisfied claimant is in appeal.

Sri. P.L. Rajesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the Tribunal erroneously attributed 20% of the contributory negligence on the appellant, that resulted in reduction of compensation amount substantially. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore from Mysore in an Ambulance. Though he had produced Ambulance bills, same is not considered. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence regarding the Commuted Leave of three months availed by him, which has caused financial loss to him. The compensation amount is not disproportionate to the pain and suffering and the medical expenses suffered by him. Hence, a reasonable compensation may be awarded by absolving him from the contributory negligence attributed to him by the Tribunal.

In reply, Sri. A.N. Knshnaswamy, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the appellant/claimant being a pedestrian ought to have been more cautious while crossing the main road on which usually there will be heavy traffic. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidentiary material has rightly noticed that the accident occurred at a distance of three feet from the western edge of the road of 20 feet width and has apportioned contributory negligence at 20% on him. He has not suffered any permanent disability due to the accident. The medical bills produced by him are all allowed. The nature of injuries suffered by him is suitably compensated and the impugned award does not call for interference.

Having heard the above rival submission and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award, following point arises for our consideration:

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate calling for enhancement?"

There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant met with the vehicular accident that occurred on 17.10.2011 at about 2.45 p.m. on Nanjangud-Gundlupet Road while crossing the road involving the Tata India registration No. KA-09/B-4112. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has attributed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and 80% by the driver of the Tata Indica car and this finding is since well founded does not call for interference. During the accident, he suffered head injury, fracture of left lateral melleolus sublaxation of left ankle and interior dislocation of the left shoulder. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 22,000/- towards pain and agony. On a careful consideration of the medical bills produced by him while rejecting some bills by assigning reasons has awarded globally Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses including attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance charges, thereby awarded Rs. 47,000/- towards compensation. While attributing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, it has awarded compensation of Rs. 37,600/- with 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

Having regard to the grievous injury suffered by him and also taking note of the fact that he was treated at NIMHANS Hospital far away from his place, we hold that the compensation shall be globally enhanced by another Rs. 30,000/- in addition to Rs. 37,600/- arrived by the Tribunal. That works out to total compensation of Rs. 67,600/- with interest @ 6% interest per annum on the enhanced compensation.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part.

The judgment and award dated 22nd October 2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 408/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-IV and Additional M.A.C.T., Mysore, is hereby modified.

The appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with proportionate interest within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant on deposit made by the third respondent.

Office to draw the award, accordingly.