AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th April 2012, passed in MVC No. 8225/2010, by the VIII. Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 94,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 14,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 42 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 4:30 P.M., on 16-10-2010, when the appellant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/EQ-9346 from BDA complex to Magadi Main Road, Nagarabhavi Ring Road, at Kottigepalya sand lorry stand junction, in front of Trinity Car Care Private Limited, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Registration No. KA-02/Z-7616, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained fracture of lower end of left fore arm, fracture lower end of radius and volar displacement and angulation, fracture syloid process of ulna and as per the opinion of the Doctor, the said injuries are grievous in nature and apart from Ex. P6, discharge summary at Ex. P8 is produced, and as per the same, the appellant took treatment as in-patient from 16-10-2010 to 18-10-2010 i.e. for a period of three days and also underwent a surgery for the fracture of ulna.
It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above 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 u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th April, 2012. 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. 94,000/-, 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 has filed the 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.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is very meager and hence, reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads and that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of future income on account of disability and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified accordingly. Further, he specifically submitted that the appellant has stated that he was Working as an Electrician under one Narayan, Class I Contractor, earning a sum of Rs. 13,000/- per month and in support of the same, he has also examined the employer, who has admitted that he is paying a sum of Rs. 13,000/- to the appellant. But, the Tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- The same is liable to be re-assessed and the compensation is liable to be enhanced.
After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant, it emerges that occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained in the road traffic accident are not in; dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained fracture of lower end of left fore arm, fracture lower end of radius with volar displacement and angulation, fracture syloid process of ulna. For treatment of the said injuries, he has taken treatment as in-patient for a period of three days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the nature of treatment, he would have taken follow-up treatment at least for a period of three months. But, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature and duration of treatment, nature of injuries sustained, evidence of Doctor, etc, has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 37,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities and unhappiness and Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses, in all a sum of Rs. 94,000/- with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The said compensation awarded is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also considering the various other factors such as the evidence of the Doctor, age and avocation of appellant, nature and duration of treatment, nature of injuries sustained and the fact that there is no loss of future earnings on account of disability. Therefore, the compensation awarded by Tribunal under all the heads is just and proper and does not call for interference nor the appellant has made out a good case for granting the relief sought in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Office to draw award, accordingly.