Somashekar, S/o. Hanamanppa Marathageri vs Narasappa, S/o. Ramappa

This is a claimant''s appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Raichur (for brevity Tribunal); the appellant/claimant being dissatisfied by the quantum of the award amount in his claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act, filed this appeal.

The brief facts of the case are: The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal; his case was that on 05.06.2004 at about 2.30 p.m., while proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-34/K-5464 as a pillion rider which was driven by the rider Basavaraj on Sindhanur- Tavergera Road, the offending vehicle i.e., KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-26/F-357, came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, consequently, he fell down. A criminal case was registered by the jurisdictional police against the rider of the motor cycle. The claimant was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was aged about 23 years and was working as a watchman, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He was hospitalized for 45 days. Due to the accident, he suffered the fracture of femur chip, fracture of lower patella, fracture of right mid and lower third shaft of right tibia.

The claim was contested by the respondents. The Tribunal after holding enquiry, on over all consideration of the evidential materials, awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Sri. Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted to Government Hospital Tavergera and subsequently, shifted to KIMS Hospital Hubli and was in-patient until 19.07.2004. Though the Tribunal did not dispute the Wound Certificate and patient Discharge Card i.e., Exs.P-5 and P-6 has not considered the loss of disability arising out of the fractures and no compensation is granted in respect of loss of future earning. A global amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will not address the loss of earning during the laid up period. Hence, the compensation may be re-assessed and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be modified by awarding just and reasonable compensation amount.

Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / Corporation submits that in the absence of any medical bills or evidence from the claimant to the effect that due to the fracture suffered during the accident, there was any impact on his earning capacity, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards ?pain and suffering'', a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards Loss of amenities awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, that commensurates with the inconvenience suffered due to the accident and expenses met.

In the light of the above rival submissions, I have perused the impugned the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal with the lower Court records. The claimant contended before the Tribunal that he was working as a watchman and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But without any document, further considering the date of the accident and the age of the claimant, it can be safely presumes that his income was not less than Rs.3,500/- per month. For a Security personal, his physical fitness is the source for his earning. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is fell into error in not considering the fact of the permanent disability suffered during the accident and loss of future earning. Considering the date of the accident, the fracture which he had suffered on account of the accident, Rs.15,000/- would address the circumstances towards ?Pain and suffering'', a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses. It is just and necessary to award loss of income during laid up period for three months i.e., Rs.3,500 x 3 months = Rs.10,500/-, towards loss of amenities, a sum of Rs.20,000/- will equate the inconvenience and hardship he has to endure, due to the fracture. Towards loss of future earning, since the claimant was 23 years at that point of time, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the suitable multiplier is 18. The percentage of injury consequent upon the fracture in relation to his whole body works out at 15%, thus it comes to Rs.3,500x12x18x15/100=Rs.1,13,400/-. Thus, he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,88,900/-. There will be an enhancement of Rs.88,900/- over and above Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, I pass the following: (i) The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the MACT, Raichur in MVC No.420/2010 is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.88,900/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, over and above Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is not entitled for any interest for the delayed period of 540 days, in preferring the appeal.

(ii) The 2nd respondent/Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.88,900/- within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this Order before the jurisdictional Tribunal. On such deposit, the entire amount shall be disbursed in favour of the appellant.

(iii) Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court records forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.