National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Ramesh Jagannath Horatti

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—This appeal is directed against the common judgment and award dated 15.03.2005 in so far as it relates to MVC No. 1146/2004, dated 15/03/2005 passed by Member Additional M.A.C.T. Hukkeri.

The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. It can be gathered from the impugned award, that the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,24,000/- under the following heads:

i.

Pain and sufferings

Rs. 1,50,000/-

ii.

Loss of future earning capacity

Rs. 1,0,20,000/ -

iii.

Loss of amenities

Rs. 1,00,000/-

iv.

Diet food

Rs. 30,000/-

v.

Conveyance

Rs. 1,0,000/-

vi.

Attendant charges

Rs. 39,000/-

vii.

Medical expenses

Rs. 50,000/-

viii.

Loss of marriage prospects

Rs. 25,000/-

ix.

Future medical expenses

Rs. 50,000/-

X.

Future attendant charges

Rs. 50,000/-

In a motor accident occurred on 09.02.2004 the respondent-claimant sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing registration No: MH-10/8377. The respondent sustained injuries as per Ex. P. 19 as under:

i. Post Traumatic Psychosis.

ii. Post Traumatic Seizures.

iii.. CT Scan shows contusion.

iv. The patient is unconscious.

The medical evidence on record discloses that the petitioner suffered 50 % psychical disability and 100 % functional disability. P.W. 3 the doctor deposed as under:

Towards treatment, the patient is treated conservatively for bleeding from left ear and post traumatic psychosis and post traumatic seizure. Further I have verified the wound certificate and summery issued by KLE hospital Belgaum.

On examination further, it is seen that, at present the patient has got slurring of speech and history of convulsions 2-3 attacks in a month, and also altered behavior.

I, further state that, on clinical examination it is observed that, the patient has got slurring of speech, limping gait and loss of memory to the extent of 25 %. In addition to it the E.E.G. shows marginal abnormal in view of the single sharp transient to the correlated clinically.

In view of the facts and observation made above, it can be easily said that the patient is unable to do any type of work, always the patient requires every assistant for each and every requirement from a person, since his memory being in an abnormal status, the patient is even unable to attend his normal work of his own. The petitioner patient has lost his marital life. Petitioner required future medical expenses and permanent: attendant. charges more than Rs. 5,00,000/-

The evidence of P.W. 3 is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination. By considering the face that, the respondent was a computer technician, having regard to the nature of injuries and based on the medical evidence, the trial court rightly concluded that the functional disability at: 100 %. On the date of the accident the petitioner was unmarried and he was aged about 26 years. By taking the age of the respondent as 26 years, proper multiplier of ''17'' is applied. It is settled position of law that as on the date of the accident a minimum of 100 % is to be taken as daily wages for a coolie. But in the instant case respondent is a Diploma holder in Computer Science and he was working and earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/-- per month. The Tribunal noticed that in support of the claim of respondent, they have not. produced any cogent evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal had only taken Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income. Therefore, the functional disability, the monthly income and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is in accordance with law and we find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.

Having regard to the age, nature of injuries and the mental disorder of the respondent, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads like, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities in life, future attendant charges, loss of income during laid up period and loss of marital happiness etc., is in accordance with law and the same cannot be said arbitrary or on higher side.

For the reasons stated above, we find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed, Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.