Ranganarasimhaiah vs B.V. Srinivas and Others

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—The appellant having sustained bodily injuries in a road traffic accident filed a claim petition in MVC No. 7949/2007 before the MACT. Bangalore seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award by holding that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the appellant/claimant in crossing the road and 75% on the part of the rider of the offending motorcycle has awarded a sum of Rs. 91,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the said amount. The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal both on negligence as well as on quantum has preferred this appeal.

As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the appellant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.10.2007, while he was a pedestrian, due to involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-02-EB-1133 and the liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle to the extent of its negligence, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:

"Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence in holding that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the appellant and 75% on the part of the rider of the offending motorcycle is sustainable in law?

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?"

Immediately, after the accident, a case was registered against the rider of the offending motorcycle as per Ex. P1. Police after investigating the complaint have laid the charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle, as evident from Ex. P2. The claimant except examining himself as PW1, in order to prove the issue regarding negligence has not examined any eye witness to the accident. No material is placed to show that he was crossing the road carefully and cautiously by observing the traffic rules and regulations. The Tribunal considering the oral evidence of the claimant and FIR, charge sheet, sketch and panchanama produced at Exs. P1 to P4 has held that the claimant has also contributed for the accident to the extent of 25% and the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the claimant in not crossing the road carefully by observing the traffic rules and regulations and 75% on the part of the rider of the offending two wheeler. We have carefully gone through the said finding of the Tribunal on negligence and we do not see any grounds for interference. Accordingly, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1.

Now, we have to see whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

As per Ex. P5-wound certificate, the claimant had sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. He was treated as inpatient for a period of four days and underwent operation. PW-2-doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered 30% disability to the right lower limb and 10% disability to the whole body. The injuries sustained and the treatment undergone by the claimant are also evident from oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor who were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 apart from the discharge summary produced at Ex. P7.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and duration of treatment undergone Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings is on the lower side and therefore, we enhance it by another Rs. 20,000/- and we award totally Rs. 40,000/- under this head.

As Rs. 27,166/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant at Exs. P8 and P9 the same is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.

The claimant claims to have been earning Rs. 17,155/- by working as an Assistant Manager in KSFC. The Tribunal calculating the number of days of leave availed by him for treatment and rest, in terms of the salary has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. The same, is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.

As already stated, claimant was treated as inpatient for four days and continued treatment as out patient for a period of three months. The Tribunal considering the duration of treatment has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards incidental charges which is also just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.

The claimant even after sustaining injuries in the aforesaid accident has continued his employment and there is no loss of employment. Therefore, awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise. Nevertheless, he has to suffer 10% disability stated by the doctor to the whole body and certain amount of 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 further no amount of compensation is awarded towards disability. Therefore, we enhance it by Rs. 30,000/- and totally Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and disability.

Claimant has undergone operation and implants were fixed. He is required to undergo one more operation for removal of implants. No amount of compensation is awarded towards future medical expenses. Thus, we deem it appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical and incidental expenses.

Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 60,000/- from which 25% is to be deducted towards negligence contributed by the claimant in causing the accident which comes to Rs. 15,000/- and after deducting the same the claimant is entitled for the net additional compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at 8% P.A.,

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified on quantum. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. The insurance company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount with interest excluding the interest for the delayed period of 949 days, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant.

No order as to costs.

Sri. K. Suryanarayana Rao, learned advocate is permitted to file vakalath within three weeks from today.