SRI MOTAPPA vs SRI MOHUMED JAMASHEED KHAN & Anr

Appellant is the claimant. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 19th March, 2012 passed in MVC No.9291/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ''Tribunal''), he has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

Appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 6.11.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. while he was proceeding on a TVS XL motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01/W 2618 towards Chintamani to Hosakote, the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-40/M 0328 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to that, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter to Sathyasai Lake Side Hospital, Bangalore. In the claim petition, it was contended that at the time of accident, he was aged about 48 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing vegetable business. In view of the injuries sustained, he has become permanently disabled to do the work, which he was doing prior to the accident. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed written statements.

The 1st respondent contended that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimant.

The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. It was also contended that due to negligence on the part of the claimant, the accident had occurred. As on the date of accident, the driver of the Maruthi Car was not having valid and effective driving license. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 2nd respondent ? Insurance Company.

After trial, the Tribunal held that due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the Maruthi Car, the accident had occurred and the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence he is entitled for compensation.

With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month, taking the disability to an extent of 15% to whole body and applying the multiplier 13 since he was aged about 48 years, awarded Rs.93,600/- towards ''loss of future income'', Rs.50,000/- towards ''pain and sufferings'', Rs.24,000/- towards ''loss of income during laid up period'', Rs.5,000/- towards ''loss of amenities in life'', Rs.75,000/- towards ''medical and incidental expenses'' and Rs.15,000/- towards ''future medical expenses''. In all, a sum of Rs.2,62,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Smt.Sunitha B, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri C Shankar Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.

The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation.

The main contention of the appellant is that he was a vegetable vendor by profession and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the income of Rs.4,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, in the road traffic accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of tibia and fibula. He underwent surgery and internal fixation has been made by using rods and plates. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards ''loss of amenities in life'' is on the lower side. Further, no compensation has been awarded towards hospitalization i.e. attendant, food and nourishment and other incidental expenses. Hence, sought for compensation.

On perusal of the judgment and award, it is noticed that the accident had occurred on 6.11.2009. The income of Rs.4,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even though the claimant has not produced any documents to substantiate the income, the Tribunal ought to have taken reasonable income while awarding the compensation. Even for the daily wage employees working in various government departments and in Lok Adalath, the income of Rs.5,000/- per month would be taken. In the instant case, reckoning the income of Rs.5,000/- per month and the disability to an extent of 15% as assessed by the doctor and applying the multiplier 13 as he was aged about 48 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- towards ''future loss of income'' as against Rs.93,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards ''''loss of amenities in life'' awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The claimant has to lead his remaining life with disability to an extent of 15%. Hence, he is entitled to another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards ''loss of amenities in life''. Further no compensation has been awarded towards hospitalization. Therefore, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ''hospitalization and incidental expenses. The compensation awarded in all other respects is in accordance with law and requires no interference. Hence, he is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.58,400/- which is rounded of to Rs.60,000/- in addition to Rs.2,62,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 19.3.2012 passed in MVC No.9291/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is modified. Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in addition to Rs.2,62,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.