AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 8th November 2011 passed in MVC No. 1799/2010 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-10) (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).
By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
It is the case of the appellant that, he was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident and hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was working as Mechanical Engineer and having an excellent academic career and he was working as General Manager in UTAL United Electrotex Private Limited and getting gross salary of Rs. 64,125/- p.m. Be as it may, on 8.1.2010 at about 7.45 p.m., when the appellant was coming back towards Bangalore after visiting Attilakkamma Temple near Yediyur, in a Santro Car bearing Reg. No. KA-02-MB-1974 slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and other friends were occupants in the car. When he came near Shanubhoganahalli Cross, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-03-C-3813 came from Bangalore on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the Santro Car and caused the accident. Due to the impact the appellant sustained grievous injuries i.e., communited fracture of L-1, with Thecal sac and cord compression with cord contusion and mild pre and paravertebral soft tissue haematoma, fracture of right clavicle, fracture of L-1 vertebra with spinal cord contusion, due to spinal injury there was absolutely no movement in both the legs and other injuries. Immediately the appellant was shifted to Pooja Hospital, Magadi road, where he took first aid treatment and later he was shifted to Panacea Hospital Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore, where he was admitted as inpatient from 8.1.2010 to 23.1.2010 for about sixteen days. Totally he under went treatment for a period of 106 days in different hospitals on different dates and also under went three major surgeries. Further the appellant has spent huge amount towards treatment, conveyance and he suffered mental pain and agony during treatment period and has to suffer discomfort through out his life. PW5, Dr. Umesh Shetty after medical and radiological examination, opined the appellant has suffered permanent disability for the compression fracture with fragmentation persistent pain, weakness (nerve root involvement) etc., to lower limbs is 40% to the whole body, based on Rom disability to lower limbs 15%, based on muscle strength 17.5%, based on stability component 15%, disability to right lower limb 40%, disability to whole body is 13%. Further he deposed that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 53% to the whole body and he has to undergo future operations for tendon transfers for right foot to correct his foot drop. The cost for the surgeries would be upto Rs. 1,50,000/-. Further case of the appellant is that, he has spent huge amount for treatment, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, taking all these aspects he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. To substantiate his case, he examined himself as PW4, Dr. Umesh N Shetty as PW5 and Dr. Murlidhara as PW6 and got marked documents as Exs. P1 to P66. Respondents neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, P53 has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,65,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, so far as it relates to pain and sufferings, medical and traveling expenses, attendant charges, loss of amenities etc. loss of future earning capacity and also disability on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/insurer.
Sri Vishwanath S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant at only Rs. 10,000/- per month, as he was aged about 36 years, working as Mechanical Engineer getting income of Rs. 64,125/- as per Exs. P52 and P53. It further erred in not assessing the reasonable whole body disability as per the evidence of the two doctors PWs.5 and 6. Further, Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation towards pain and sufferings, medical and traveling expenses, attendant charges, loss of future earning capacity etc., and on account of grievous injuries sustained he under gone treatment for a period of 106 days on different dates in different hospitals and spent huge amount towards treatment and he has to under go one more surgery which costs Rs. 1,50,000/- and was suffering from mental agony and has to under go follow-up treatment and was not in a position to continue his job and was under complete bed rest and in vegetative state. He has suffered permanent disability and was unable to sleep properly, to sit for a long time, unable to stand, walk, run etc, and he needs an assistant to do the routine work. In support of the same, he was produced Exs. P26 to P53. PW5 Dr. Umesh Shetty after medical and radiological examination assessed 53% disability to the whole body but the Tribunal has taken only 15% disability to the whole body. Therefore, impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation in the light of judgment of Apex Court and this Court.
Per contra, Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
Occurrence of the accident resulting in the injuries to the appellant is not in dispute. Further it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident and hale and healthy. He was working as Mechanical Engineer in UTAL United Electrotex Private Limited and as per Ex. P52, salary slip, he was getting salary of Rs. 64,125/- p.m. We accept the same. He met with an accident on 8.1.2010 and under gone treatment for a period of 106 days and under gone three surgeries. He has examined the Doctor PW5 Dr. Umesh N Shetty, who after medical and radiological examination, assessed permanent disability of 53% to the whole body. We accept the evidence of doctor PW5 and accept the permanent disability of 53% to the whole body. He has to under go follow up treatment for a period of three months and it is permanent in nature and was not in a position to do his work as he was doing before accident. He has to endure the said difficulty through out his life. The appellant was aged about 36 years the appropriate multiplier applicable is ''15''. As per the evidence of Doctor, the appellant has to undergo future operations for tendon transfers for right foot to correct his foot drop, which is going to cost Rs. 1,50,000/- approximately. Thus we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for enhancement of reasonable compensation under different heads. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we deem fit to award Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- towards medical expenses as against Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,92,375/- (Rs. 64,125/- x 3 months) towards loss of income during treatment period as against Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and future discomfort as against Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 61,17,525/- (Rs. 64,125/-x12x15x53/100) towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability as against Rs. 2,70,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/-towards Loss of future earning as against Rs. 5,000/-.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 8.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1799/2010 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 69,59,900/- with 6% interest per annum on the enhanced sum as against Rs. 5,65,000/- and the breakup is as follows:
Enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 63,94,900/-. The 1st respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 63,94,900/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.
Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 50,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled/Gramena Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another ten years, with liberty to him to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.
The remaining Rs. 13,94,900/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.