Pandharinath vs Shivkumar

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—Though the matter is posted in the list of admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment.

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

The facts reveal that the appellant was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration KA-38/J-3974 and due to the rash and negligent driving of another motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-38/-7759, an accident occurred and the appellant sustained severe injuries. He was treated in the hospital. He claimed compensation for pain and suffering, mental agony, loss of income during treatment period, medical expenses etc.

The appellant was examined as PW. 1 and in his evidence Exs. P1 to P19 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW. 1 was examined.

The tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 95,666/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum, holding that the rider of another motorcycle was negligent and has caused the accident. Dissatisfied with compensation granted, the present appeal is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that compensation towards loss of income during treatment period and transportation charges has not been granted. He also seeks enhancement on other heads.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and award.

Ex. P6 is the injury certificate. The appellant has suffered the fracture of both bones of left leg. He was admitted in Yashoda hospital as per Ex. P14. He has suffered three fractures and only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering. I think an additional sum of Rs. 20,000/- is necessary on this head as the appellant has suffered as many as three fractures.

That apart, though the appellant was serving in a bank and was getting a salary of Rs. 18,000/-, approximately, the tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of income despite the fact that he had to apply for leave and considering the fact that atleast one month time is necessary for healing the fractures, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- appears to be just and proper towards loss of income during treatment period.

No compensation has been granted towards transportation charges. The appellant is resident of Bidar and had to been in the hospital at Solapur and also at Hyderabad. Taking into consideration the treatment in different hospitals which are far away from his native, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- appears to be just and proper. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. No other grounds are made out for enhancement.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The appellant is not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 316 days.