Nataraj vs Subbanna M. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 19/04/2013, passed in MVC No. 1179/2011, by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (hereinafter referred to as '' Tribunal'' for short), on the ground that a sum of Rs. 7,22,000/- awarded under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant claims to be aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as cleaner. That on 3.11.2010 at about 3.00 a.m. appellant was proceeding in a Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA. 02.D. 6757 from Chennai to Bangalore on National highway and when they came near Vellai White gate, Flyover, Chittherimedu, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the another lorry bearing Reg. No. KA. 04.7509 which was proceeding ahead of their lorry and caused the accident. Due to which, appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kancheepuram, after taking treatment, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, where, he took treatment as inpatient for 28 years, underwent surgery, his left leg was amputated above knee and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 7,22,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for second respondent-Insurer.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. K.N. Harish Babu, appearing for the appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the appellant reasonably, on the ground that, he is aged about 26 years and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as he was working as cleaner and the accident is of the year 2010. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the appellant may be re-assessed reasonably atleast between Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 6,500/- per month. Further, he submits that on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 28 days, underwent surgery, his left leg was amputated above knee. Doctor has assessed the disability at 80% to the left lower limb and 42% to the whole body. Due to which, he has suffered mental pain and agony, spent reasonable compensation towards medical expenses, conveyance nourishing food and incidental charges, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his future earning capacity and also his marriage prospects and he requires some amount towards future medical expenses, including incidental expenses. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation and what is awarded towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards loss of amenities, towards loss of future earnings and towards future medical expenses is inadequate and it has erred in not awarding any compensation towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses and towards loss of marriage prospects. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel for insurer, inter-alia, contended and submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it emerges from the records that, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant, he has undergone treatment for 28 days as inpatient, underwent surgery, his left leg was amputated above knee. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, we re-assess the disability at 70% instead of 100% disability taken by the Tribunal contrary to the M.V. Act. The appellant has produced medical bills to the tune of Rs. 19,790/- after excluding whatever amount paid by the owner of the vehicle and he might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance and other incidental charges during the period of treatment and follow up treatment and he might have undergone lot of pain and agony. The disability is permanent in nature, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life, it would affect his working capacity and he has lost his amenities and enjoyment in future life and it would affects his marriage prospects also. As there was an amputation of left leg above knee, appellant has to replace the artificial limb once in three years and for that he may require some amount. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age, occupation and the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the claimant at Rs. 4,500/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice. The proper multiplier applicable would be ''17'' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal since the appellant was aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident and we accept the same. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering instead of Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 19,790/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness instead of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 6,42,600/- ( Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 17 x 70%) towards loss of future earnings instead of Rs. 6,12,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses including purchase of artificial limb instead of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 11,32,390/- instead of Rs. 7,22,000/- and the break-up is as follows:

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2010. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 19/04/2013, passed in MVC No. 1179/2011, by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 11,32,390/- instead of Rs. 7,22,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 4,10,390/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,10,390/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,10,390/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 4,10,390/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.