Shankar Naik @ Shankarappa vs P. Chintaiah and others

Aravind Kumar, J. - This is a claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by MACT, Raichur in MVC 425/2010 dated 25-10-2013.

We have heard the arguments of Sri. Sharanagowda V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellant, Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. Notice to respondents 1 and 2 has been dispensed with vide order dated 3-11-2014.

On account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 22-1-2010 appellant-claim-ant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of RS. 42,17,374/- contending inter alia that on account of injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident he has become disabled and he is unable to carry on any work or avocation. Before tribunal respondent-insurance company appeared, filed its written statement and contested the matter. Parties have tendered their evidence both oral and documentary and on evaluation of entire evidence Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded total compensation of RS. 16,58,000/- under the following heads :

Description

Amount

1.

Pain and suffering

50,000.00

2.

Loss of income during treatment period

18,000.00

3.

Medical expenses

10,00,000.00

4.

Loss of future earning

5,40,000.00

5.

Loss of amenities

30,000.00

5.

Loss of conveyance, nourishment, diet

20,000.00

Total

16,58,000.00

It is the contention of Sri. Sharanagowda V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellant that compensation awarded by Tribunal construing the disability at 50% is erroneous inasmuch as doctor has stated that disability suffered by claimant is to an extent of 100% and as such tribunal ought to have construed the disability at 100% and awarded compensation. He would also contend that on account of claimant being disabled for life he has to be taken care of by an attendant and compensation towards attendant charges for entire life also needs to be awarded. He further contends compensation awarded under all other heads is abysmally low and prays for award of enhanced compensation.

Per contra Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for insurer would submit that compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any enhancement and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records it would indicate that as per X-ray report Exhibits P-15(a) to P-15(g) claimant had sustained following injuries :

"Fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs in right side in their posterior aspects; fracture of Proximal shaft of humerus noted with internal fixator in site; Fracture of mid shaft of femur noted with internal fixator in situ; Fracture of proximal shaft of humerus noted with internal fixator in situ."

He was an inpatient for two months 20 days at Prime Hospital, Hyderabad as per the discharge summary Exhibit P-17. Claimant was referred to Medical Board by the Tribunal itself and doctors of the Medical Board have submitted a report as per Exhibit P-21 and they have opined claimant is having Spastic quadric paresis with severe restriction of wrist and shoulder with left foot drop which amounts to 100% disability. They have also formed opinion that claimant had been advised to take further treatment at NIMHANS for neurological injury by then treating doctors and no details are forthcoming in this regard. Hence, on the basis of disability certified which was available before the medical board they have opined that claimant was negligent in taking treatment. However, in conclusion they have opined that claimant has disability to an extent of 100%. Still tribunal held claimant is able to carry on normal activities as he was doing prior to accident and 100% disability cannot be construed for the purpose of computation of compensation towards `loss of future income''. On this ground tribunal construed the disability at 50% which according to us is improper and erroneous. Learned counsel for appellant during the course of arguments has filed photographs of claimant which has been perused by us. Same when read in conjunction with the medical records and assessment report Exhibit P-21 of medical board before whom claimant was referred to for being assessed, we are of considered view that 80% has to be construed as whole body disability inasmuch as claimant would not be able to carry on any avocation during his life. However, said disability may not come in the way of his attending to day to day activities like, eating, attending nature''s call. Hence, disability to the whole body can be construed at 80% for purpose of awarding compensation towards `loss of future income''.

Tribunal considered the income of claimant at RS. 6,000/- which is just and proper and accordingly adopting the same compensation is computed towards loss of future income which would be RS. 6,000 x 80/100 = 4,800 x 12 x 15 = RS. 8,64,000/-. Since tribunal has awarded RS. 5,40,000/- same requires to be deducted and balance has to be awarded by way of additional compensation i.e. RS. 3,24,000/- ( RS. 8,64,000 - RS. 5,40,000) and same is hereby awarded towards `loss of future income''.

Considering the fact that claimant would have to be under care by an attendant at times and the fact that he is unable to move independently `loss of amenities in life'' has to be compensated by awarding suitable compensation and as such additional sum of RS. 50,000/- is awarded and it would meet the ends of justice.

Insofar as compensation towards `pain and suffering is concerned undisputedly as per Exhibit P-17-discharge summary claimant was hospitalised for two months 20 days. He has undergone surgery and there has been fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on right side in their posterior aspects and as such towards `pain and suffering'' additional sum of RS. 30,000/- is awarded. Even after being discharged claimant has taken treatment or continued his treatment. As such claimant would have spent amount towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Hence, a sum of RS. 20,000/- is hereby awarded in addition to what was awarded by the Tribunal.

Thus, in all claimant would be entitled to an additional compensation of RS. 4,24,000/- under the following heads :

1.

Loss of future income

RS. 3,24,000.00

2.

Loss of amenities

RS. 50,000.00

3.

Pain and suffering

RS. 30,000.00

4.

Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges

RS. 20,000.00

Total

RS. 4,24,000.00

Hence, following :

ORDER

Appeal is hereby allowed in part.

Judgment and award dated 25-10-2013 passed in MVC 425/2010 by Additional District Judge and MACT, Raichur is hereby modified and additional compensation of RS. 4,24,000/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

No costs.