AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—This is an appeal filed u/s 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 17/7/2003 made in MVC No. 81/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and MACT, Virajpet.
There is no representation for the Appellant. The Appellant is Respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle namely Lorry bearing registration No. CNX-5189, in the claim petition.
The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal is as under:
The Respondent No. 1 herein filed a claim petition u/s 166 of MV Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,19,720/- from the driver and owner of the lorry towards personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 6/5/1999. It is stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by Respondent No. 1, it came and dashed against the motor cycle bearing Ho. RJ-19-6-M-8333 driven by the Respondent No. 1 along with his wife as a pillion rider and the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident. Therefore, he filed a claim petition for compensation.
The owner and driver of the lorry entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. The Tribunal has framed as many as 5 issues. The parties went to trial. In support of the case of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW-1, besides examining PW-2 to FW-6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P24. X-ray reports were marked as Ex.C1 to C80. In rebuttal, the owner of the lorry got himself examined as RW-1, besides examining RW-2 to RW-4 and got marked copy of the deposition and sketch in C.C. No. 953/99 as Ex.D1 and D2. The Tribunal has answered issue No. 1 on the point of negligence, in the affirmative in favour of the claimant and against the driver and owner of the lorry. Issue No. 2 was answered in the negative holding these the driver and owner of the lorry failed to prove that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant. Issue Nos. 3 & 4 were discussed together and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in favour of the claimant against the Respondents 1 & 2, holding that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
This is impugned in this appeal.
The Appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation. It is contended that compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is on the higher side.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1-claimant, submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not call for interference.
It is the case of the claimant that he sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident. As per Ex.P3 -wound certificate, there was a contusion over right supra claviculer region; abrasion over the forehead 2x2 cm; swelling and deformity over left thigh with abnormal mobility; swelling over the right leg with contusion over the lower one third; swelling over the left forearm; sutured wound over the right elbow and to the 4th finger (right). There was diffused cerebral oedema; fracture of neck of the left femur, fracture of subtrachanlers region of femur; comminuted fracture at lower end of right fibula and comminuted fracture of right clavicle. As per the records placed before the Tribunal, the claimant was admitted to City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Center, Mangalore, where he was treated as inpatient till 14/6/1999. Thereafter the claimant was shifted to Command Hospital, Bangalore. Ex.P5 is the discharge summary, The claimant was treated in the City Hospital at Mangalore for 42 days. Ex.P13 is medical case sheet issued by Military Hospital, Jabalpur. As per Ex.P13, the Petitioner was recommended to continue in low medical category of S1 (T-24+24) shape factors, advised to work under supervision with restricted responsibilities and not to handle fire arms and live ammunitions and review thereafter with fresh AFMS-10. As per the medical report, the claimant walks with a limp on the left side on left lower limb. As per Ex.P14 dated 1/3/2000, the claimant was fit for military duties in plains and hills upto 2000 meters, but not fit for military duties in isolated garrison and involving long marching (beyond 5 kms.), involving active hostilities (counter insurgency operations, etc.) and unfit for crawling and jumping.
The Tribunal after examining the said materials, has held that the claimant has lost future prospects, but rejected the contention that the claimant has got permanent disablement to the extent of 40%. The claimant has claimed compensation of Rs. 9,055/-towards damage to the motor cycle. But the Tribunal has held that he was not entitled to claim compensation towards damage to the vehicle on the ground that he did not produce RC book and other relevant documents.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries, period of treatment and on account of the disabilities noticed, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 20,000/-towards conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/ -along with reasonable interest at the rate of 6% p.a. In my opinion, the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said as excess. In my view, there is no good ground to entertain the appeal.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Appellant be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. 1/03 for stay, does not survive for consideration.
No costs.