Shri Basavaiah vs M/s. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. Manje Gowda

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

With consent of learned counsel on both sides, appeal is taken up for final hearing. Claim petition filed u/s 166 of MV Act, 1988 in the MACT was allowed in part and compensation of Rs. 93,800/- with interest was awarded and ordered to be paid by the respondents, the insurer and owner respectively, of the offending vehicle. Respondents have not questioned the impugned judgment and award them to pay the compensation, This appeal is by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record. Only point for consideration is, ''whether there is a just and reasonable award by the MACT in favour of the claimant?''

Record would indicate that the claimant sustained crush injury to right Foot with compound 1st metatarso phalangeal joint dislocation with medial heel flap avulsion. He has taken treatment in three spells and was an inpatient for about 34 days. PW.2 Dr. Vinodkumar. A.C., having examined PW.1 and having heard complaint of pain in the right foot, has found wound with discharging sinus at 1st toe. He has observed that, PW.1 suffers pain while walking and there is limping of right leg, According to PW.2, that on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the claimant has not been able to walk on uneven surface, not able to squat for toileting and finds difficulty in climbing stairs. PW.2 has assessed the disability suffered in relation to particular limb at 45% and in relation to whole body at 15% Tribunal without any justification has taken the permanent disability suffered in relation to whole body at 5% and by taking the income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. has assessed the loss and passed the award for Rs. 93,800/- with interest.

Keeping in view the evidence on record, the nature of injuries sustained the treatment obtained, despite which, there being permanent disability suffered, which has resulted in functional disability insofar as claimant appellant is concerned, he to age about 55 years and an agriculture, the sum award by the Tribunal is inadequate. There is no just and reasonable award by the MACT.

The claimant was hospitalized for about 34 days. He has takes follows-up treatment. He has undergone pain and suffering on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Thus, he is entitled to be award under the head ''pain and suffering'' Rs. 30,000/-. The medical bills produced would account for Rs. 29,802/- For obtaining treatment by being an impatient, the claimant has incurred expenditure towards conveyance nourished diet and attendant. Hence, under the head ''medical and incidental expenses'' there has to be an award for Rs. 50,000/-.

Appellant being an agriculture even if he is taken as an agricultural coolie, the accident having taken place on 21.03.2008, income ought to have been taken at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. or Rs. 48,000/- p.a. as against Rs. 36,000/- p.a. There is loss of income during laid off period i.e., for about three months. Hence, there has to be an award for Rs. 12,000/- under the said head. The Tribunal in its discretion has awarded under the head ''future medical expenses'' Rs. 5,000/-. No addition is called for, since the appellant has not produced any mistrial for having incurred expenditure over and above Rs. 5,000/- for obtaining of treatment, after the award was passed by the MACT.

The income of the appellant being Rs. 48,000/- p.a., the disability suffered being 15%, the loss of future earnings is Rs. 79,200/- (600 x 12 x 11). The permanent disability suffered at the age of 55 years would definitely affect the future enjoyment of life. There is loss of amenities of life and hence, there has to be an award for Rs. 20,000/- thereunder.

In the result, appeal is allowed in part and impugned judgment and award is modified. Compensation payable by the respondents is determined at Rs. 1,96,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till date of deposit.

Two months time is allowed for the respondents to deposit the balance amount in the MACT. No order as to costs.