AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the common judgment and award dated 13th October 2010, passed in MVC No. 5133/2009 by the XVIII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (for short, `Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,960/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 4,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 31 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident of the appellant at about 2:00 P.M, on 01-04-2009, on the left side of the Gandrajupale-Palamner Road, near Keerthi Hotel, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Hyundai Car bearing No. AP-21 0-9779, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained lacerated wound on oceipit measuring 5 x 2 x 1 cm., abrasion over the right elbow measuring 3x 1 cm and nail from little finger right foot peeled off and on clinical examination mid X-ray shows that he sustained fracture of right radius middle 1 / 3rd and upper 1 Ord. The appellant has also underwent a surgery to set right fracture of right radius under general anesthesia and was discharged from the Hospital and took follow-up treatment. Due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to the Hospital, where he took treatment as in patient.
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 erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified and reasonable compensation may be awarded.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant flied the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13th October, 2010. 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. 1,00,960/- 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 tree 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 91e, has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in the Hospital for some period. !During the treatment period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. The appellant has sustained lacerated wound on oceipit measuring 5 z 2 x 1 cm., abrasion over the right elbow measuring 3x 1 cm and nail from little finger right foot peeled off and on clinical examination and X-ray shows that he sustained fracture of right radius middle 1/3rd and upper 1 /3rd. The appellant has also underwent a surgery to set right fracture of right radius under general anesthesia and was discharged from the Hospital and took follow-up treatment. The Doctor has assessed the disability of 30.8% in respect of right upper limb and 10% in respect of the whole body. But, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has re-assessed the whole body disability at 8%. The same is on the lower side. The appellant being aged about only 31 years, has to endure the disability for the rest of his life and it would be difficult for him to perform his day to day activities, as earlier. Further, the income assessed by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age and avocation of the appellant and nature and duration of treatment and also the fact that he cannot to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, I deem it fit to award a global compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts arid circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 13th October 2010, passed in MVC No. 5133/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, 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 and award.
On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.