Venkatalakshmamma @ Dhanalakshmi vs M./s National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Jallepalli Vamsee Murali Rao

A.S. Pachhapure

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal seeking enhancement. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

It is on 21.07.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., when the appellant was crossing on left side of Bangalore-Bellary road, Hosur Gate, the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. DL 09-SN 9753 driven in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the appellant and thereby she fell down and sustained fracture of inferior ramie of pelvis left, side and suffered grievous injuries. She was admitted to the hospital for treatment and incurred expenses, suffered disability and therefore, claimed compensation on all the heads.

The petition was contested by the respondents. During the enquiry, the appellant was examined as P.W. 1, Doctor-P.W. 2 and in their evidence document at Exhs. P1 to P11 have been marked. No evidence was led by the respondents. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record held the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and considering the nature of fracture, disability suffered etc. granted compensation of Rs. 85,820/ with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the present appeal has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The points that arise for consideration is:

i) Whether the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation?. If so to what extent?

It is not in dispute that the appellant has suffered the fracture of inferior ramies of left pelvis and was examined by the Doctor-P.W. 2 who has assessed the disability of the particular limb at 26% and whole body at 13%. The Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. If another sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded on the said head, it would be just and proper. The Tribunal has granted reasonable compensation towards treatment, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges at Rs. 15.000/-. Insofar as the loss of income during laid up period is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3500/-. The accident is of the year 2008. The Apex Court has held the monthly income of a coolie at Rs. 3,000/- in respect of an accident of the year 2001. As there is increase in the price as also the wages of the coolies, I think it would be just and proper to consider the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2011 SCW 4787 (Ramachandrappa -vs.-The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited) wherein in respect of the accident of the year 2002, the Apex Court has considered the income at Rs. 4,500/-, but any how, the question with regard to the assessment of the income was not considered and therefore, 1 am of the opinion that it is not a binding precedent. The appellant hails from a village and in the present days, the wage varies from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is one third of the disability of the particular limb has to be considered as the disability for whole body. The doctor has not assigned the reasons for his conclusion regarding the disability to the particular limb at 26% and whole body at 13%. Hence, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper to consider the disability at 9% to the whole body. The appellant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and the proper multiplier would be 16. Therefore, the loss of future income would be in a sum of Rs. (4000 x 12 x 16 x 9)/100 = Rs. 69,120/-.

So, the appellant is entitled to the additional sum of Rs. 28,800/- (Rs. 69,120 - Rs. 40,320 = Rs. 28,800/- ) as the loss of future income. If the income at Rs. 4000/- p.m. is considered for a reasonable period of treatment, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards the loss of income during laid up period and since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 10,500/- she is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1500/- on the said head. Furthermore, the Tribunal has considered and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Taking into consideration the nature of the fracture, permanent disability suffered and the difficulty in standing and sitting, I think, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the said held. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,300/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till payment. Hence, I answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) In addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,300/ with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its deposit.

iii) The appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount of compensation.