Vedharaj vs Nilakanta and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Appellant is the claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 14-03-2014 made in MVC No. 1050/2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belur (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 4-9-2010, at about 5.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on Prasadhihalli-Adligere Road to go to his father-in-law house at Adligeri village on the extreme left side of the road. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-18/K-5599 ridden by its rider in the rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the claimant, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, head and other injuries to the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sanjeevini Hospital, Hassan and he had taken treatment therein as inpatient. In the accident, the claimant had sustained the following:

(a) fracture of right femur bone,

(b) pubic physis disruption grade-I,

(c) left black eye,

(d) abrasion over left knee,

(e) contusion towards right thigh lateral aspect,

(f) abrasion of left side of forehead,

(g) contusion over the left side chest.

He had undergone surgery, plates and screws have been fixed. He claims that he had spent more than Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenditure. Prior to the accident, he was working as a agriculturist and doing Animal Husbandry earning more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. In view of the accident, he cannot do the agricultural work and animal husbandry and sought for compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied the age, earning and medical expenditure. Further, the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the rider of the offending motorbike did not possess the valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Hence the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant, in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P12. He further examined Dr. T. Lakshmeesha, who treated him as P.W. 2 and got marked the medical documents as Ex. P13 to Ex. P16. On behalf of the second respondent, its Development Officer was examined as R.W. 1 and got marked a document as Ex. R1.

The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the spot mahazar, IMV report, FIR and Seizure mahazar, held that due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by its rider, the accident had occurred and the claimant has sustained injuries and hence, he is entitled for compensation.

With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the wound certificate Ex. P8 and the doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 9% to the whole body. At the time of accident the claimant was aged about 38 years, applying the multiplier 15, taking into consideration income at Rs. 4,500/- p.m., the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 72,900/- towards future loss of income; Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs. 12,000/- towards special diet, nursing, extra nourishment and conveyance charges; Rs. 3,600/- towards attendant charges; Rs. 4,500/- towards loss of earning during the laid up period; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life; Rs. 15,000/- towards future medical expenditure. In all, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri. P.P. Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.U. Poonacha, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

The records clearly disclose that in the road traffic accident occurred on 4-9-2010, the claimant has sustained injuries. The finding of the Tribunal regarding actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle is not challenged by the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned. In view of the injuries and fracture sustained in the accident as per the wound certificate Ex. P8, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 16 days and undergone operation. The plates and screws have been inserted which has restricted the movements of the claimant. The doctor has assessed the mobility disablement to an extent of 22.4%, stability disablement to an extent of 5% and additional disablement to an extent of 6% and total disability assessed was at 33.4%. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability only to an extent of 9% to the whole body, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have taken 1/3rd of 33.4% as assessed by the doctor. Further, income of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is also lower side. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2010. Usually the agriculturists would earn more than Rs. 6,000/- p.m. during the relevant period. At the time of accident, he was aged about 38 years. The compensation awarded towards loss of amenities is also on the lower side. In view of the accident, the claimant was out of employment for a period of more than 2 months. Hence, the compensation awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period is lower side. Hence, I am of the opening that taking into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs. 6,000/- p.m., the disability of 33.4% assessed by the doctor, out of which, if 1/3rd is taken, it would come to around 11%, and applying the multiplier 15, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,18,800/- towards future loss of income (6000 x 12 x 11/100 x 15) as against Rs. 72,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. With the disability of 33.4% the claimant has to lead the remaining life. Hence, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Further, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 64,900/- which is rounded off to Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly I pass the following:-

The appeal allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 14-3-2014 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1050/2012 is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.