AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
It is admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the tribunal.
The brief facts of the case:
On 23.02.2008, when the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing No. KA 41 H-695 near 14th main road Attiguppe, Bangalore, a Tata 407 bearing registration No. KA 05 D-1357 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
As there is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
The learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and duration of treatment undergone by him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement and therefore ha prays for dismissal of the appeal.
The claimant has sustained fracture of shaft of right humerus and other simple injuries as evident from the Wound Certificate Ex.P-5 and supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor, who were examined as PWs-1 and 2 respectively. He was treated as inpatient for about 5 days in Sharavathi Hospital, Vjjayanagar, Bangalore. PW-2, the doctor has stated that there is disability of 27% caused to the limb and 9% to the whole body.
Considering the nature of injuries, Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ''pain and suffering'' is just and proper and it does not call for interference.
The claimant has produced medical bills for Rs. 49,540/- and the Tribunal considering the same and duration of treatment, awarded a sum of Rs. 77,540/-towards ''medical and incidental expenses'' such as ''conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges''. As the same is baaed an the medical bill''s and duration of treatment, there is no scope for enhancement.
Similarly, Rs. 9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ''loss of income during laid up period'' is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this heed.
PW-2, the doctor who treated the claimant has stated that there is 27% disability caused to the limb and 9% disability caused to the whole body. He also deposed that this disability comes in the way of claimant discharging his duties. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that PW-2 is not an orthopedic surgeon as admitted by him in the cross-examination and he is only a Medico Legal Assistant and his evidence cannot be acted upon. The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant is fracture of shaft of right humerus. He has not produced any documents substantiating his contention that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as a cook, further the nature of injuries would not affect his future income, and therefore it is not a fit case for awarding compensation towards ''future loss of income''. Nevertheless, the claimant has to bear with certain amount of inconvenience, discomfort and unhappiness in his future life. Considering the same, Rs. 20,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards ''loss of amenities'' is on the lower side and therefore it is just and proper to award another Rs. 20,000/- towards ''loss of amenities'' and disability and I award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under this head as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus in all, the claimant is entitled for an additional/enhanced compensation of Rs. 20.000/- from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit this additional compensation within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of which 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised/Schedule Bank for a period of 7 years in the name of the claimant and the remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in his favour immediately after the deposit.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. No order as to costs.