Santhosh Kumar vs Ganesh K. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 14th March 2014, passed in MVC No. 309/2012, by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 20,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 1,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 23 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 8:00 A.M., on 30-05-2011, when the appellant was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-19/EC-7488 as a pillion rider, near Narahari nagara of Golthamajalu village on B.C. Road-Kalladka Road from the opposite side, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Car bearing Registration No.KA-20/B-2009, is not in dispute. Due to the impact, the appellant was thrown out of the motor cycle and sustained injuries all over his body and was hospitalized at Somayaji Hospital, B.C. Road till 01-06-2011 and after discharge, he was under further hospitalization at ADM Ayurveda Hospital, Kuthpady, Udupi from 10-10-2011 to 18-10-2011 and thereafter was advised follow-up treatment.

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. 1,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 14th March, 2014. 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 compensation of Rs. 20,500/- 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.

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.

Shri. G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and also attendant charges. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement of compensation be made under all the heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, and after due consideration of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral evidence of PW 1 and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P11 and Exs. R1 and R2, has awarded just and reasonable of Rs. 6,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 3,934/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,100/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 500/- towards traveling expenses, Rs. 2,100/- towards food and nourishment and Rs. 5,600/- towards loss of income during treatment period, in all, Rs. 20,234/- and rounded it off to Rs. 20,500/- on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident.

It can be seen that, as per Wound Certificate at Ex. P3, the appellant has sustained abrasion over the right side of the forehead and face and contusion injury over the right wrist joint and contusion of left inguinal area and the Doctor has opined that the said injuries are simple in nature and the same is ratified by the discharge summary as per Ex. P9. Further, looking at the number of days the appellant had taken treatment as in-patient, I am of the view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding reasonable compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges.

Thus, the reasoning given by Tribunal at paragraphs 12 and 13 of its judgment for awarding the compensation of Rs. 20,500/- is just and proper and does not call for interference nor the appellant has made out a good case for entertaining the appeal.

Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.