Sathisha vs Raghu N.R. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is pasted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 06/03/2013, passed in MVC No. 1149/2012, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,47,500/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. on Rs. 1,32,500/-, from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 23 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident, and working as mason and also doing agriculture and milk vending business and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. That on 20.6.2012 at about 8.15 a.m., appellant was proceeding in a motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.04.EL.4821 belonging to his uncle''s son Ananda, as a pillion rider and when they reached Karikallu mandi at Singapura, at that time, the rider of another motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.13.X.7056 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike in which the appellant was traveling. As a result, appellant fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan, where he took treatment as inpatient for 07 days, underwent surgery, implants were inserted and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment."

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the physical disability at 15% to right lower limb and 10% to face. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 1,47,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. on Rs. 1,32,500/-, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of income during treatment period, towards loss of future income and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably and further the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and the same is liable to be awarded reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, appellant was aged about 23 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and in the accident, he sustained two grievous injuries and three simple injuries, taken treatment for 7 days as inpatient, underwent surgery, implants were inserted. He examined the Doctor as PW2, who has assessed the permanent disability at 15% to the right lower limb and at 10% to the face. But the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 7% to the whole body and the same has to be reassessed reasonably. Due to which, he has underwent lot of pain and agony, spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses, taken bed rest and follow up treatment atleast for three months, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life, it would affect his earning capacity and now he is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under different heads. He further submits that, the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be reassessed reasonably atleast at Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced atleast at 8 to 9% in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court since the accident has occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, inter- alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After careful consideration of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P6-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that, he was aged about 23 years, working as mason and also doing agriculture and milk vending business and hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. But the appellant has not produced any document to prove the same. The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month which is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably. Having regard to the age and occupation of the appellant and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 6,500/- per month as against Rs. 4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Admittedly, on account injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 7 days, underwent surgery and implants were inserted. During the said period, he might have undergone lot of pain and agony, he might have spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses, and as per the advise of the Doctor he might have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment atleast for three months, during the said period, he might have incurred financial loss as he could not have attended his work regularly. Further, it is the case of the appellant that, on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. To prove the same, he examined the Doctor as PW2, who after clinical examination has assessed the permanent disability at 15% to the right lower limb and at 10% to the face. The Tribunal, has assessed the disability at 7% to the whole body and it needs to be modified as 1/3rd of 25% comes to 8.33% and it is rounded off to 8% and therefore, we re-assess the whole body disability at 8% instead of 7% assessed by the Tribunal. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life and also affects his earning capacity. As per the evidence of the Doctor, appellant has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants and for that, he may require some reasonable amount towards medical and incidental expenses. Therefore, the appellant has to be compensated reasonably. The proper multiplier applicable is ''18'' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal since appellant was aged about 23 years as on the date of the accident and we accept the same. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 19,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month for three months as against Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 1,12,320/- ( Rs. 6,500/- x 12 x 18 x 8%) towards loss of future earnings as against Rs. 60,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and loss of future income towards disability and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness.

The Tribunal, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs. 15,000/- towards future medical expenses and therefore, it does not call for interference.

In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 2,36,820/- instead of Rs. 1,47,500/- and the break- up is as follows:

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2012. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the entire compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 06/03/2013, passed in MVC No. 1149/2012, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,36,820/- instead of Rs. 1,47,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 89,320/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization on the entire compensation.

The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 89,320/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization on the entire compensation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, the entire enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant.

Draw the award, accordingly.