Sowmya Naiky vs D. Suresh and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th March 2010, passed in MVC No. 953/2007, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimoga, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against her claim for Rs. 4,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 46 years and working as Typist in Munisiff Court, Shivamogga and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 10:30 A.M, on 05-01-2007, when the appellant was traveling in the autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-18/5167 to go to her duty in the office of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn), Shivamogga, near Jayanagar Police Station, on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of Motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-17/H-6662 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and she was immediately shifted to Mc. Gann Hospital and thereafter shifted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga, where she took treatment as in-patient for five days.

It is her further case that, on account of the accident, she sustained injuries stated above and for the treatment of the said injuries, she has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, she 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. 4,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 27th March, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and loss of income during treatment period. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the appellant was aged about 46 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as Typist in the Munsiff Court. Because of the accidental injuries, she took treatment as in-patient and also out-patient and has lost future amenities, comforts and happiness on account of the injuries and also disability. Further, he submitted that the appellant has sustained injury to head, sutured wound 2 1/4" length over the right hand wrist, left penorbital Echhymossis with swelling, multiple abrasions of 1/2" x 1/2" each on the face and dorsal aspect of left hand. Further, she was also suffering vomiting sensation, giddiness and sleeplessness since the date of accident. And due to the same, she may not be normal in her daily activities and suffering from post-traumatic syndrome which requires regular treatment. All these aspects of the matter have not been looked into or considered by Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement be made under all heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for third respondent Insurer inter alia contended and sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the entire material, including oral and documentary evidence available on file. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 9,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence it does not call for interference. However, so far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation and therefore, it requires enhancement.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained injury to head, sutured wound 2 1/2" length over the right hand wrist, left penorbital Echhymossis with swelling, multiple abrasions of 1/2" x 1/2" each on the face and dorsal aspect of left hand. Further, she was also suffering vomiting sensation, giddiness and sleeplessness since the date of accident. And due to the same, she may not be normal in her daily activities and suffering from post-traumatic syndrome which requires regular treatment. She was referred to CT Scan of brain and CT scan was obtained and X-rays were also obtained and she took treatment as in patient from 05-01-2007 to 08-01-2007. As per wound certificate issued by Mc. Gann Hospital, the appellant has sustained three simple injuries and the Medical Officer has opined that the injuries are all simple in nature. The appellant, being aged about only 46 years, has to endure the inconvenience and discomforts for the rest of her life. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in the Hospital for a period of four days. During the period of treatment, the appellant must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, I presume that she should have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment at least for some period. Further, during the period of treatment, she would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apartment from incidental and medical expenses. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of injuries sustained; Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 8,000/-; Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 8,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 59,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs. 25,000/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows:

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 27th March 2010, passed in MVC No. 953/2007, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimoga, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 59,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, as against Rs. 25,000/-, awarded by Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs. 34,000/- with 6% interest per annum.

The third respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.