Raja Shekar Shetty vs Lakshmana B and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Huluvadi G. Ramesh

This is a claimant''s appeal for enhancement against the award passed by the Addl. MACT, Mangalore in MVC 272/2011 on 9.4.2012. On 22.11.2010 around 7.00 p.m. when the claimant was standing by the side of the road at Beach Junction on NH 17, Panambur, a vehicle bearing No.KA 19 R 1297 came from Bykampady side in a negligent manner and dashed against the claimant due to which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to Wenlock Hospital and was inpatient there for nine days and thereafter, he has taken follow up treatment for two to three years. In the claim petition filed, Tribunal having held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 65,000/- on the following heads:

Medical Expenses

Rs. 5,000/-

Pain & suffering

Rs. 25,000/-

Loss of income

Rs. 15,000/-

Loss of amenities

Rs. 20,000/-

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant is in appeal.

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

According to the appellant, though the disability is assessed at 15% to the whole body, he has not been awarded future loss of income and the quantum of compensation awarded on all other heads is on the lower side. It is stated, he has sustained head injury and disability which he has to suffer throughout his life and therefore, seeks for enhancement.

Per contra, counsel representing the insurer submitted, the disability was only temporary. As per the doctor''s evidence, disability will reduce in course of time as there will be improvement, by taking regular treatment. Therefore, the compensation awarded is just and proper.

As per medical evidence, claimant sustained fracture of occipital bone of brain and also diffuse cerebral cerebral oedema with sub arachnoid haemorrhage and the injury is also opined as grievous in nature as per the wound certificate issued at Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore. At the time of examination by the doctor for the purpose of assessing disability based on the X Ray, he has opined that the X Ray depicts the fracture of occipital Bone has united and 15% disability has been suffered by the claimant. However, the doctor has admitted that he has not treated the claimant/injured and only assessed the disability. He has also admitted that claimant was not suffering from any disease like fits or giddiness.

Argument of the counsel representing the insurer is, the certificate issued is not by the doctor who has treated the injured.

In the context the disability assessed is not by the doctor who has not treated the claimant, compensation may have to be reduced. However, claimant could be awarded another Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and incidental expenses. Taking the disability around 5 to 6 % to the whole body, as the accident is of the year 2010, taking the income between Rs. 4,500 to 5,000/-, claimant could be awarded another Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of future income due to disability. Thus, claimant would be entitled to another Rs. 60,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest from the date of petition till deposit. Insurer to deposit the amount in three months. Appeal is allowed in part.