Sheena Naik vs Kalavathi S. Chatra and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 27/12/2012, passed in MVC No. 71/2012, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, (for short Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest awarded by the Tribunal as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 60 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 21.6.2011 at about 7.25 p.m. when the appellant was traveling in a bus bearing Reg. No. KA.20.B.8778 from Haladi towards Shankaranarayana and when the bus came near Kattemakki Brahma Temple, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and then the bus fell on the road. Due to which, appellant and others sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Chinmayee Hospital, Kundapura where he took treatment as an inpatient and thereafter, 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 and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, he 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 appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under different heads and non examination of Doctor will not take away the legitimate entitlement of compensation by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He further submits that appellant was aged about 60 years, coolie by profession and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he is not in a position to do work as he was doing earlier. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation under different heads.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that he is aged about 60 years and working as coolie and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. In the accident, appellant has sustained injuries as per Ex. P4- wound certificate, but he has not produced any discharge summary to show as to how many days he was in hospital and the nature of treatment given to him. He has also not examined the Doctor to prove that the said injury is grievous in nature and wound certificate is not supported by X ray or X ray report and the evidence of Doctor. The Tribunal, taking all these factors into consideration and taking into consideration the medical bills produced by the appellant, has justified in awarding a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, by assigning cogent and valid reasons in para 11 of its judgment. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for, nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.