Shivakumar vs Akram Baig

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16th August 2014, passed in MVC No. 3717/2013, by the II Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), (for short, ''Tribunal''), seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 4,39,392/-awarded on account of the injuries sustained by appellant is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

The appellant claims to be aged about 22 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. He contended that he met with an accident at about 6:30 P.M. on 11-06-2013, when the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/HG-8964, near Shreyas Choultry, Seegehalli Gate, Magadi Road, within the limits of Tavarekere Police Station, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. KA-13/M-2288 and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Hospital for treatment of the said injuries.

It is his further case that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has undergone severe pain and agony and for the treatment of the said injuries, he has 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. 20,00,000/- against the respondents.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents for quite some time and perused the judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

Shri. K.V. Shyamaprasad, learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant for the reason that the appellant was working as Junior Technician at Kandor Systems and Controls (P) Ltd. and getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month and to substantiate the same, he has also produced salary certificate at Ex. P8 and also examined the Manager of the said Company as PW3. Therefore, he submitted that the monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and reasonable income may be re-assessed. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, viz. fracture of right tibia, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of zygomatic bone and fracture of orbital bone and facial bone and the functional disability of 33% towards right lower limb and 11% whole body disability. He also submitted that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 13 days in the Hospital and the compensation awarded towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is on the lower side. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle, insurance coverage and its validity as on the date of accident are also not disputed.

Further, it can be seen that, the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, including the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, amount spent towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, functional and whole body disability etc, has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 45,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 2,04,832/- towards medical expenses as per the medical bills and prescriptions, Rs. 14,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and Rs. 1,42,560/- towards loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, in all, Rs. 4,39,392/- for the injuries sustained by appellant. The same in our view is just and proper and is commensurate with the nature of injuries and permanent whole body disability sustained by appellant. Therefore, interference in the well founded and well considered judgment and award passed by Tribunal is uncalled for nor the appellant has made out a good ground to consider the relief sought in this appeal.

Further, it can be seen after evaluation of the entire material available on file that, the appellant in his evidence has stated that he is a painter by profession and the Doctor after clinical examination and considering the physical impairment, has specifically opined that the injuries are healed, complete union of all fractures and there is limitation of movement of right knee, and find difficulty to attend normal routine activities. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the original records available on its file, has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 6,000/- and accepted the whole body disability assessed by the Doctor at 11% and awarded compensation towards loss of future income. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal after looking at the nature of injuries, duration and nature of treatment undergone by appellant, has awarded just and reasonable compensation under the heads, pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment period and also conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, considering the medical bills and prescriptions which are supported by deposit receipts and ignoring the duplicate bills, has awarded just compensation of Rs. 2,04,832/-. The same, in our opinion, is just and proper and does not warrant interference.

Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the firm opinion that the Tribunal, after properly assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on its file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all the heads and interference in the well considered judgment and award is not warranted nor we find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, we decline to entertain the relief of enhancement of compensation sought for by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.