Pavani vs Acchappa B.K. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 20th September 2013 passed in MVC No. 76/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mysore (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,54,000/- 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 grievous injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.

It is the case of the appellant that, she was aged about 38 years, hale and healthy as on the date of accident and was working as Beautician and also LIC Agent and earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. On 29.11.2012 at about 2.00 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. KA-45-J-2699 as a pillion rider on Hunsur-Periyapatna main road, near the land of Siddalingappa of Somanahalli, the driver of Renold Duster Car bearing registration No. KA-04-TX-8426 drove the said vehicle from Hunsur, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and public safety and dashed against the Motorcycle on which the appellant was traveling and due to the impact, the appellant suffered injuries on her face, chest, head, left hand, Pelvis and other parts of the body. She was shifted to Apollo Hospital and she has underwent operation. On account of the grievous injuries sustained by her, she under went treatment for a period of 21 days in the hospital. As per Ex. P7 Discharge Summary of the appellant pertaining to Apollo Hospital issued by the Department of Neuro Sciences and Neuro Surgery, it is evident that she had suffered concussive head injury with diffuse axonal injury, comminuted fracture of left humerus, anterior and posterior pelvic ring fracture with minimal displacement, right upper limb brachial plexus injury, right haemopneumothorx with multiple rib fracture on right side, blunt injury to abdomen with grade I liver and splenic laceration. PW. 2 Dr. Ramesh Ranganathan who is the treated Doctor has assessed 40% disability to the whole body in view of severity of head injury. Due to grievous injuries, she is facing permanent physical disability. The appellant is not able to lead normal life. The appellant has spent huge amount towards medical treatment. In spite of best medical treatment the appellant is suffering from physical disability. Due to the accidental injuries and physical disability, it is not possible for her to continue her profession as before. Further case of the appellant is that, she has spent huge amount for treatment, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, she 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 her case, she examined herself as PW 1 and Dr. Ramesh Ranganathan as PW 2 and Dr. Sree Harsha as PW 3 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P23. Insurer examined Santhosh as RW 1 and Acchappa as RW 2 and got marked the documents as Exs. R1 to R7.

The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,54,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 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, special diet etc. loss of future earning capacity and 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 third respondent/Insurer.

Sri. Syed Abdul Saboor, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant, as she was aged about 38 years and working as Beautician and LIC agent and earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at only Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the appellant may be reassessed. The injuries sustained by the appellant are grievous in nature and she underwent treatment for a period of 21 days in the hospital and the disability towards whole body may be assessed at 40%. The disability of 15% assessed by the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record. She is not in a position to continue her profession as before. Even now she is suffering from grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Doctor has stated that she requires another Rs. 30,000/- towards future medical expenses. But the Tribunal has not considered it. He further submitted that the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum is also on the lower side since the accident is of the year 2012 and the same may be enhanced to 9% p.a. to 10% per annum. Therefore, impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation.

Per contra, Sri. P.B. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. However, after going through the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal in respect of other matters arising out of the same accident, he fairly submitted that appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law.

After considering the submission 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 arises 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 38 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and working as Beautician and LIC Agent and earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal took only Rs. 5,000/- as her income, which is on the lower side. As per Ex. P4 wound certificate and Ex. P7-Discharge Summary issued by the Apollo Hospital issued by the Department of Neuro Sciences and Neuro Surgery, it is evident that she had suffered concussive head injury with diffuse axonal injury, comminuted fracture of left humerus, anterior and posterior pelvic ring fracture with minimal displacement, right upper limb brachial plexus injury, right haemopneumothorx with multiple rib fracture on right side, blunt injury to abdomen with grade I liver and splenic laceration. PW 2-Dr. Ramesh Ranganthan after radiological and clinical examination has assessed 40% disability to the whole body in view of the severity of head injury. But the Tribunal has assessed only 15% disability which is to be re-assessed. Therefore, we deem it fit to reassess the disability at 20% towards whole body, to meet the ends of justice. She underwent follow up treatment for a period of 3 months. Because of the accident not only the appellant even her family members have suffered a lot as she has lost her future career.

Having regard to the nature of injuries, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for enhancement of reasonable compensation under different heads. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice and multiplier applicable is ''15'' for the age of the appellant.

She is not in a position to do her work as she was doing before accident. She has to endure the said difficulty throughout her life. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we deem it fit to award Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 3 months) towards loss of income during treatment period as against Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 20,000, Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 15 x 20/100) towards permanent disability and loss of future earning capacity as against Rs. 1,44,000/-. Rs. 30,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 10,000/-. However, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- towards Medical Expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment charges. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is on the lower side. As the accident occurred in the year 2012, in the light of catena of Judgments, we deem it fit to award 9% interest per annum on enhanced compensation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th September 2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 76/2013 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 8,09,000/- with 9% interest per annum on the enhanced sum as against Rs. 6,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the break-up is as follows:

The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- with interest at 9% 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.

The entire enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- with 9% interest per annum shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.