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 23rd August 2011, passed in MVC No. 580/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 40 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident of the appellant at about 4:30 P.M., on 05-02-2010, when the appellant was traveling as a pillion rider in Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-45/J-6207, from Periyapatna towards Hunsur side, near Ceramic circle, Halagere village, B.M. Road, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a Scorpio Car bearing No. KA-12/N-2354, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Vikram Hospital, Yadavagiri, Mysore.
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.
The learned counsel for appellant contends that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries type III-B compound segmental fracture of both bones of right leg and fracture distal end of right radius and PW 2, Doctor has assessed the disability towards particular limb and also whole body at 15%. The said disability persists throughout his life and the appellant has to suffer future discomforts and unhappiness. Therefore, reasonable compensation may be awarded under the said head, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and that the compensation awarded towards all the heads is just and proper and interference in the same is not called for. However, he fairly submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded under loss of amenities discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability.
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. 20,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2011. 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. 1,62,000/- 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 also Insurer.
After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in different Hospitals, for some period. During the treatment period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, he has treated with debridement with supporting medicines. PW 2, Doctor has assessed the disability towards particular limb and also towards whole body at 15%. The said disability persists through out his life. The appellant being an agriculturist has to endure this disability for the rest of his life and he cannot do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation of the appellant and nature and duration of treatment, disability and also the fact that he cannot to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, I deem it fit to award another sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability. 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 23rd August 2011, passed in MVC No. 580/2010, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability.
The first respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, 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.