AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimant against the impugned common judgment and award dated 18.2.2013 passed in MVC No. 144/2012 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4) (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 2,97,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on account of injuries suffered in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the case are:
The appellant was aged about 44 years, an Electrical Engineer and hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 19,000/- per month. Be that as it may, on 10.10.2011 at about 2.30 a.m., when he was traveling in a car bearing No. KA-03-MA-3600 along with others near Chennapattana Bypass circle, at that time, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-8002 came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Car. Due to the impact, he sustained injuries to the head, fracture of mid shaft of right humerus, left inter trocantric fracture of left hip with left multiple abrasions all over the body and underwent surgical treatment for the said injuries. He has examined the doctor P.W. 5 who in turn after clinical and radiological examination has opined that the appellant has suffered trocantric fracture of left hip, fracture of shaft, right humerus, cerebral concussion, multiple sutured wound over scalp and face and was treated as an in-patient from 10.10.2011 to 17.10.2011 and underwent open reduction internal fixation, right humerus with dynamic compression plating and dynamic hip screw and plate. He has also stated that the appellant has made multiple post-operation visits and the fractures have united. He has assessed the disability at 39% to the right upper limb and 21% to the whole body. He also stated that the appellant requires another surgery for removal of implants which costs Rs. 70,000/-. It is the case of the appellant that he suffered mental pain and agony and has to suffer loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness throughout his life. 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 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. 2,97,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation as also the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.
We have heard Sri Raghavendra E.P. for Smt. Gayathri Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Smt. Sumangala A. Swamy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Raghavendra E.P. submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury pain and sufferings, loss of income during laid up period, future medical expenses including incidental expenses and loss of future income. To substantiate his submission, he pointed out that the appellant was aged 44 years, working as an Electrical Engineer and getting a salary of Rs. 19,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has not taken these aspects of the matter, on the contrary, assessed the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Therefore, he submitted that the income may be reassessed by awarding reasonable compensation. He further submitted that on account of injuries suffered, the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of eight days on different dates and also undergone three surgeries. P.W. 5-doctor after clinical and radiological examination has assessed 29% disability for the whole body. The appellant was advised to take bed rest for six months and on account of that he was relieved from job. The doctor has opined that he may require Rs. 70,000/- for future medical expenses. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. The Tribunal has also erred in not awarding reasonable rate of interest and what is awarded is inadequate. In the light of catena of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the rate of interest may be awarded at 9% to 10% p.a. by modifying the impugned judgment and award.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Corporation inter alia submitted that the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. The compensation awarded is 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 all the three parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the point that arises 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 the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the appellant was an Electrical Engineer and earning Rs. 19,000/- per month. Taking the age, avocation and the year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to meet the ends of justice. He was admitted as in-patient for eight days in the hospital on different dates. P.W. 5 doctor after clinical and radiological examination has assessed the disability at 39% to the right upper limb and 21% to the whole body. It is the case of the appellant that he suffered mental pain and agony and has to suffer loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness throughout his life. He requires further amount towards surgery and other incidental expenses. Taking all these factors into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment as against Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness and future earnings due to disability as against Rs. 1,23,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 1,22,000/- awarded towards medical and incidental charges does not call for interference. In all, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,57,000/- as against Rs. 2,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 1,60,000/-.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the rate of interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 18.2.2013 passed in MVC No. 144/2012 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), is hereby modified by awarding compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/- as against Rs. 2,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent No. 1/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 5 years and renewable for 5 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.
Remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately on deposit by the said respondent.
Office to draw the award, accordingly.
Shri Janardhan Reddy is permitted to file vakalath for respondent No. 1 within four weeks.