AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the common judgment and award dated 1st April 2006, passed in MVC No. 1260/2000, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Mangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal''), on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the appellant as against her claim for Rs. 10,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident of the appellant at about 4:00 P.M., on 15-06-1999, near Belidavalaya galiya, Kunigal, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of goods vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-13/788, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained swelling over left forehead, lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cms. over right angel of UPS and small abrasion on ulmar styloid area left wrist. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was shifted to General Hospital, Kunigal, and thereafter shifted to St. John''s medical college Hospital, Bangalore, where she was inpatient for nearly 13 days.
It is her further case that, on account of the accident, she sustained swelling over left forehead, lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cms. over right angel of UPS and small abrasion on ulmar styloid area left wrist. Further, she has suffered disfigurement on account of losing one tooth and needed prolonged treatment of gums and incisors. For the said treatment, she has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, she has to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and others. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st April, 2006. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under two different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the compensation awarded by Tribunal under the heads is on the lower side and that it has failed to award any compensation towards loss of amenities and hence, reasonable enhancement may be made under the said heads and award compensation towards loss of amenities by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, we are of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 6,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 14,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. Further it has not awarded any compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. She was in patient for about 13 days and during this period she would have spent reasonable sum under the said head. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellant has sustained swelling over left forehead, lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cms. over right angel of UPS and small abrasion on ulmar styloid area left wrist. She has also suffered disfigurement on account of losing one tooth and she needed prolonged treatment of gums and incisors. The appellant being aged between 17-20 years at the time of accident has undergone this ordeal and it must be noted that any amount of dental treatment to the lost tooth would not bring back the normalcy and she has to bear with it till the rest of her life. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries, age and avocation, nature and duration of treatment and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accident has occurred during 1999, we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and also conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by claimant/appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 1st April 2006, passed in MVC No.1260/2000, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Mangalore, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 381 days in filing the appeal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Upon deposit of the said sum by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.