AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on 30.06.2008. He filed a claim petition under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1983, against the respondents, insurer and owner of offending vehicle. MACT allowed the claim petition in part and passed award for Rs. 1,42,000/- with interest. Dissatisfied, claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement. Sri Chandrashekar Rodnavar, learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has committed error in the matter of appreciating the evidence and the compensation awarded by it is a paltry sum. Learned counsel submits that the record of the case has not been correctly appreciated and just and reasonable compensation has not been awarded.
Sri B. Pradeep, learned Advocate for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, would argue that the Tribunal in the absence of credible evidence has assessed the compensation payable in just and fair manner and the award passed by it reflects just compensation. Learned counsel submits that there is no scope for enhancement of compensation and seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Perused the record. Only point for consideration is, whether, the Tribunal has passed a just Award?
Ex.P25 is the wound certificate, in terms of which, the injuries sustained by the appellant are (a) fracture of right femur; (b) fracture of right humerus; (c) head injury; (d) contusion over chest; (e) abrasion over right hand and elbow. Claimant obtained treatment by being inpatient from 30.06.2008 to 13.07.2008. Doctor who treated the injured was not examined. However, Dr. Kiran was examined as PW-2, who has opined that there is 22% permanent disability suffered on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal has disbelieved the version of PW-2 and no amount is awarded under the head ''loss of future earnings''. However, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for the loss on account of the disability suffered. Tribunal has also disallowed medical bills to a large extent.
The record Would show that the claimant -appellant has incurred expenditure of Rs. 83,713/- for obtaining of treatment in relation to the injuries sustained in road traffic accident. Tribunal has committed error in disallowing the medical bills.
As on the date of accident, claimant was aged about 32 years. But his income and avocation has not been established by producing credible evidence. Evidence of PW-3 being contradictory, has rightly not been accepted by MACT. However, MACT has committed error in taking the income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The accident having taken place in 2008, claimant aged about 32 years, even on notional basis, income ought to have been taken at Rs. 48,000/- p.a.
Keeping in view the evidence of PW-2, there is permanent disability suffered in relation to whole body at least to an extent of 10% which reduces the future earning capacity of the appellant. There is loss of future earnings, in respect of which no award is passed by the MACT. In view of the record of the case, there being no just and reasonable award passed by the Tribunal, the just and reasonable compensation which the respondents have to pay to the appellant is as follows:
Heads
Amount (in Rupees)
Pain and suffering
40,000/-
Medical expenses
83,713/-
Incidental expenses: Conveyance, attendant & nourished diet
15,000/-
Loss of income during leave period: Rs. 4000 x 4
16,000/-
Loss of future earnings: Rs. 400 x 12 x 16
76,800/-
Loss of amenities of life
20,000/-
Total
2,51,513/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment/Award is modified. Appellant is held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 2,51,513/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit, in the MACT.
Respondent - Insurance Company is granted two months'' time to deposit the balance compensation amount in the MACT.
No order as to costs.