Sanju vs V.V. Satyanarayana and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 1st July 2010, passed in MVC No. 2/2006, by the VI Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 84,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be a minor aged about 8 years at the time of accident, a brilliant student, studying in II Standard and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 5:30 P.M., on 13-02-2006, near Gujjegowdanapura Bus Sop, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, when the appellant was crossing over the road, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Contessa Car bearing Registration No. KA-03/M-983 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and took treatment in JSS Hospital, Mysore and admitted as in-patient from 13-02-2006 to 17-03-2006.

It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained fracture of left humerus, left ulna and left 7th rib apart from three simple injuries and for the treatment of the said injuries, his parents have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st July 2010. 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. 84,900/- under 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 is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

I 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.

Shri. M.M. Swamy, learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of income of the parents of appellant, during treatment period and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. Therefore, the same is liable to be modified. To substantiate the said submission, he pointed out that the appellant was a minor boy aged about only 8 years as on the date of accident and studying in II standard and a brilliant student. He has sustained grievous injuries, viz. fracture of left humerus, left ulna and left 7th rib and three simple injuries and on account of the said injuries, he has undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and his parents have spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. All these aspects of the matter have not been looked into or considered by Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement be made under all the heads, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for third respondent, Shri A.M. Venkatesh, vehemently submitted that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all the heads and hence, interference in the impugned well considered judgment and award passed by Tribunal is uncalled for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, after going through the evidence and the nature of injuries sustained coupled with the age of the appellant, he fairly submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made towards injury, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is,

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 9. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, it emerges that the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 24,500/- towards medical expenses. Hence, it does not call for interference. However, so far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation and therefore, it requires enhancement.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained fracture of left humerus, left ulna and left 7th rib apart from three simple injuries. PW2, Doctor has clearly stated that the appellant took treatment as out patient for about 32 times and attended for 7 times as inpatient and on many occasions as outpatient and in all, for a total period of 77 days as in-patient. Further, the Doctor opined that when he examined the appellant, he found deformity and stiffness in the left elbow, wrist and fingers and due to the said injuries, he could not lift heavy weight with his left hand and will also have difficulty in using the computers and typewriter and opined that he has sustained permanent disability of 24% pertaining to the left upper limb. The appellant, being aged about only eight years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in the Hospital for quite a long period. During the period of treatment, the appellant must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, I presume that he should have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment at least for some period. Further, during the period of treatment, his parents would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apartment from incidental and medical expenses. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against Rs. 18,000/-; Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, as against Rs. 7,700/-; and Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 9,700/-awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,74,500/-, with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs. 84,900/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows:

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 1st July 2010, passed in MVC No. 2/2006, by the VI Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,74,500/-, with interest at 6% per annum, as against Rs. 84,900/-, awarded by Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs. 89,600/- with 6% interest per annum.

The third 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, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

On such deposit by the Insurer, 50% shall be deposited in the name of the appellant in Fixed Deposit, in any nationalized or scheduled Bank, till he attains the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the natural guardian to withdraw the periodical interest for his welfare, till he attains the age of 21 years and from 22 years to 30 years, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining 50% shall be released in favour of the appellant, through his natural guardian, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.