Veerabhadraswamy N.B. vs Managing Director

N.K. Patil, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 10/08/2011 passed in MVC No. 5835/2010, by the XXI ACMM & XXIII A.S.C.J., Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 88,000/- awarded with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its actual deposit, as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant claims to be aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as an Engineer and earning Rs. 16,600/- per month. That on 1.10.2006 at about 7.45 p.m. appellant was standing near Jayabheri bus stand on the left side of the road, at that time, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. AP.9.Z.7274 came from Kottagudu towards High Tech city in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. Due to which, he sustained fracture of pelvis and other grievous injuries and his urinal bladder is damaged. Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and then at Sagar Hospital Jayanagar, Bangalore, he took treatment for 13 days as inpatient in both the hospitals and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the physical disability at 18% to the whole body. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondent.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 88,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, and loss of amenities discomforts and unhappiness and what is awarded is inadequate and also erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during the treatment period. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he took treatment as inpatient for 13 days in two hospitals, underwent three surgeries and the Doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 18% to the whole body. Further, he submitted that he spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and on the advise of the Doctor, he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment atleast for two months, during the said period, he incurred financial loss and discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his earning capacity and now he is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation, inter-alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature and duration of treatment taken by him and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P4-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, appellant was aged about 26 years, working as a Software Engineer in M/s. Polaris IT Company at Manikonda, Hyderabad and drawing the salary of Rs. 16,600/- per month. On account of fracture of pelvis and other injuries sustained by him in the accident, he took treatment as inpatient for 13 days in two hospitals and underwent surgeries. To prove the same, he examined the Doctor who after clinical examination has assessed the disability at 16% to the pelvis right hip and 3% to the left hand and in total 18% and we take the whole body disability at 10% having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life and also affects his earning capacity.

Further, it emerges that, during the course of treatment, appellant might have undergone pain and agony, on the advise of the Doctor he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment atleast for two months, during the said period, he might have sustained financial loss, as he could not have attended his work regularly and the disability is permanent in nature. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 33,200/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for two months at the rate of Rs. 16,600/- per month; Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness instead of Rs. 20,000/-.

However, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the medical bills produced by the appellant and therefore, it does not call for interference.

In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,68,200/- instead of Rs. 88,000/- and the break-up is as follows:

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 10/08/2011 passed in MVC No. 5835/2010, by the XXI ACMM & XXIII A.S.C.J., Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,68,200/- instead of Rs. 88,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 80,200/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

The respondent-Corporation directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,200/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

Immediately on such deposit by the respondent-Corporation, the entire enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,200/- with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.