AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are:
That on 4-2-04, when the claimant was returning from Mysore to Bangalore in his own Maruthi Van bearing registration No. KA-03-N-522, near Bidadi. the driver of offending Tempo bearing registration No. KA-10-9292 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his Maruthi Van. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT. Bangalore, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the higher side and therefore it is deserved to be reduced.
The claimant has sustained the following injuries:
Fracture of right tibia and fibula shaft.
Fracture of right acetabulum.
Fracture of head R fibula.
Fracture of the metatarsal left..
Lacerated wound over the exterior aspect of right Forearm 10x10x2 cm.
Lacerated wound over the left leg 10x2x3 cm.
Injuries sustained by him are evident from wound certificate - Ex. P.4, photos with negatives Ex. P.8 and P.8(a) and Ex. P.9 and P.9(a) and supported by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively.
P.W. 2 - Dr. Sudhakant has stated in his evidence that claimant has sustained the aforesaid injuries and has suffered disability of 15% to whole body.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the higher side and it is deserved to be reduced to Rs. 60,000/-.
Learned Counsel appearing for the parties has produced the certified copy of medical bills of HQSMAT Hospital, where claimant had taken treatment. According to the bills, claimant had spent Rs. 93,115/- towards medical expenses and the same is awarded as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical and incidental expenses.
Claimant was treated as inpatient for 33 days in HOSMAT hospital on three spells, i.e. from 4-2-04 to 23-3-04, from 24-3-04 to 6-4-04 and 22-7-04 to 23-7-04. Considering the same, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.
Claimant claims to be a Proprietor of S.R. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and alleged to have been earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. But Saral Form - Exs. P.6 and 6(a) disclose his annual income was Rs. 1,50,000/-. Claimant in his cross objection admits, he has not produced documents to show that the amount of loss he has suffered during the period of treatment. Therefore, Tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
Even though claimant, failed to produce evidence regarding actual amount of loss he suffered during treatment period, he could not look after his business and there would be some inconvenience caused to his business and might have suffered some amount of loss of income from his business and therefore a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
Considering the nature of fractures sustained by the claimant and disability of 15% stated by the doctor to whole body and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness which he has to undergo for the rest of his life, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards permanent disability as against Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and Rs. 75,000/ towards loss of earning during laid up period.
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
1) Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
2) Medical expenses Rs. 93,115/-
3) Incidental expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4) Towards loss of income during laid up period Rs. 25,000/-
5) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
6) Permanent disability Rs. 50,000
Total Rs. 2,93,115/-
Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. Compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2,93,115/-.
The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting amount if any already deposited.
Out of the compensation 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D. in any nationalized or scheduled Bank in the name of the claimant for a period of 6 years, renewable once in three years and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in his favour.
Amount deposited before this Court is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.