Puttappa vs K. Ravi and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29/03/2011, passed in MVC No. 1073/2009, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davangere, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 4,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of Rs. 39,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant claims to be aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and agriculturist and Teacher by profession. That on 3.4.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding on his bicycle on the road in Donnehalli village on NH4 in Jagalur Taluk, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA. 28. AD. 9957 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him from the back side. Due to which, appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Jagalur and thereafter, he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere and subsequently, he was said to have been admitted to S.S. Hospital, wherein, he took treatment as inpatient from 3.4.2009 till 11.8.2009, underwent surgeries. Further, he was admitted to Suchetana Hospital, Davanagere, where he was treated as an inpatient from 1.9.2009 till 30.9.2009. His right leg above knee was amputated and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 4,97,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for Insurer.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. Hanumanthappa B. Haravigoudar, appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the appellant reasonably and what is assessed is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced, on the ground that, appellant was aged about 45 years, agriculturist and teacher by profession and the accident is of the year 2009. Further he submits that, on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, his right leg was amputated above knee, he has also sustained compound fracture of urethra and on account of which, he is not in a position to discharge urine normally. He has spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and on account of permanent disability suffered by him, he is not in a position to do his work he being agriculturist and teacher by profession. To prove that he is an agriculturist, he has produced Ex. P8. Further he submits that, the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal at 50% to the whole body is on the lower side and is liable to be re-assessed. On the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment for more than six months, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his earning capacity as he is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier and he requires some amount towards future medical expenses for purchase of artificial limb including incidental expenses. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation and what is awarded is inadequate. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for insurer, inter alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Further he submits that the Tribunal has justified in taking the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month towards supervision charges and the amputation of right leg above knee does not affect him from making supervision of agricultural operation. He further submits that, during the period of treatment, the appellant might have suffered mental pain and agony, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and therefore, the same may be considered in accordance with law.

After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P6-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that, he was aged about 45 years, agriculturist and also teacher by profession, but he has not produced any documents to show that he is working as teacher. But he has produced Ex. P8-ROR to show that he is having land and doing agriculture. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age, occupation of the appellant and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month to meet the ends of justice. On account of the grievous injuries sustained by him, his right leg was amputated above knee, due to which, he is not in a position to do his work and he has also suffered damage to Urethra as per the evidence of the Doctor and case sheet as per Ex. P441 and P458. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 50% to the whole body which is on the lower side. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the nature of disability, we reassess the disability at 60% to the whole body instead of 50% as done by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life and also affects his earning capacity.

Further, it emerges that, during the course of treatment, appellant might have undergone pain and agony, he might have sustained financial loss, as he could not have attended his work regularly and the disability is permanent in nature and as there was an amputation of right leg above knee, he has to replace the artificial limb and for that, he may require some amount for purchase of artificial limb, including incidental expenses. The proper multiplier applicable would be ''14'' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal since the appellant was aged about 45 years as on the date of the accident and we accept the same. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for one year at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month instead of Rs. 35,000/-; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness instead of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 4,53,600/- Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 14 x 60%) towards loss of future earnings instead of Rs. 2,52,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses including purchase of artificial limb and other incidental expenses.

However, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the medical bills produced by the appellant and therefore, it does not call for interference.

In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 9,57,600/- instead of Rs. 4,97,000/- and the break-up is as follows:

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29/03/2011, passed in MVC No. 1073/2009, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davangere, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 9,57,600/- instead of Rs. 4,97,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 4,60,600/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,60,600/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,60,600/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of 05 years and renewable by another 05 years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 1,60,600/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.