Venkatabovim vs Hemanth and The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st November 2012, passed in MVC No. 261/2011, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (for short. ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,13,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 50 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 8:20 P.M., on 03-12-2010, when the appellant along with his son was proceeding on Hassan-Belur Road in front of Vijayanagar Bus stand, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bajaj Motor bike bearing Registration No. KA-13/W-373, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained pain and swelling right wrist, fracture right radius, fracture ulna upper 1/3, pain and swelling left leg, fracture tibia and fibula and abrasion right knee region and it is stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injury No. 3 is simple in nature. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to the Hospital.

It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above 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.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 21st November, 2012. 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. 2,13,600/-, 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 has filed the 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 the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of future income, loss of amenities and loss of income during treatment period. The appellant was working as a coolie and also doing agriculture work, earning Rs. 7,000/- per month and has sustained pain and swelling right wrist, fracture right radius, fracture ulna upper 1/3, pain and swelling left leg, fracture tibia and fibula and abrasion right knee region and on account of the said injuries, he took treatment as in patient and the Doctor has assessed 25% functional disability towards right upper limb and 33% in respect of left lower limb. But the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the whole body disability at 10%. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. The appellant has examined Doctor, PW2, who in his evidence has deposed about the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the treatment given to him. He has further deposed that the appellant has sustained fracture of right radius and ulna and fracture of right tibia and fibula. He has further opined that the appellant has got permanent physical disability to an extent of 25% in respect of right upper limb and 33% in respect of left lower limb. If the functional disability of both the right upper limb and left lower limb is added, it comes to 58% and 1/3rd of it would be 19.33%. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained coupled with the age, avocation and the evidence of the Doctor, I am of the view that the permanent disability of 10% assessed by Tribunal is just and proper. Further, the Tribunal is also justified in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- per month, having regard to the year of accident and the multiplier of ''13'' adopted by Tribunal is also just and proper and is as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 52,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 5,000/towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,18,600/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, discomfort and unhappiness, Rs. 6,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, in all a sum of Rs. 2,13,600/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. Hence, interference in the same is not called for and I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal nor I find any merit in the appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.