AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on 29.01.2008 and filed claim petition under S. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the respondents, insurer and owner respectively of the offending vehicle. MACT, on appreciation of the record, recorded a finding that the accident was the result of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and passed the Award for Rs. 72,900/- with interest. Respondents have not questioned the Judgment and Award passed by the MACT. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Contention of Sri T. Raja ram, learned Advocate is that the Tribunal has failed to assess the loss in just and fair manner, keeping in view the evidence brought on record with regard to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. Learned counsel submits that there is paltry sum awarded by the MACT and hence, the compensation may be re-assessed and enhanced,
Sri Ravish Benny, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, would argue that there is just and reasonable award by the MACT and there being no ground for enhancement of compensation, appeal may be dismissed.
Ex. P6 is the wound certificate. There was fracture of left tibia. PW-2 Dr. Venkatesh J.B. has deposed regarding the fracture of leg bones and the surgical treatment. PW-2 after the treatment period, has examined PW-1 for the assessment of permanent disability. He has noticed that the patient was finding difficulty while walking for a little distance and was also complaining of difficulty while squatting and sitting cross-legged. PW-2 has assessed permanent limb disability at 25% and in relation to whole body at 10%. PW-2 has deposed that for further surgery, for removal of implant, it would cost Rs. 20,000/-.
Appellant was an employee in an ancillary unit of MICO, drawing salary of Rs. 6,980/- p.m. and on account of the sustaining of injury in the road traffic accident, he must have been out of work at least for a period of about 2 months. There is loss of leave or earnings during the treatment and rest period. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not assessed the loss in just and fair manner. There being underassessment of loss, the just and reasonable compensation which the respondents have to pay to the appellant is as follows:
heads
Amount (in Rupees)
Pain and suffering
30,000/-
Medical expenses
22,900/-
Towards future medical expenses
10,000/-
Incidental expenses:
Conveyance, attendant & nourished diet
15,000/-
Loss of income during
treatment & rest period: 7000 x 2
14,000/-
Loss of amenities of life
25,000/-
Total
1,16,900/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment / Award is modified. Appellant is held entitled to compensation of 71,16,900/- 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.