Yallappa vs Shanulla and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Appellant is the claimant in M.V.C. No. 1303/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal'' for short). Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 22.08.2011 passed in the aforesaid claim petition, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The appellant/claimant, filed the claim petition contending that on 25.05.2010, he, along with other passengers, was travelling in Tata 407 Maxicab bearing No. KA-23/3530 and at about 10.30 a.m., when the said vehicle was near Muktimath Butramatti on National Highway-4, P.B. Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver and because of applying sudden brake, the maxicab turned turtle resulting in the accident. Due to the said accident, he and other passengers travelling in the said vehicle sustained grievous injuries. The claimant sustained injuries to head, face, back and compressed fracture of left spine and multiple injuries all over the body. Initially, he took treatment at a Primary Health Centre and thereafter, at District Hospital, Belgaum, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 25.05.2010 to 30.05.2010. The claimant claimed that he was an agriculturist, aged 50 years and used to earn Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. Due to the accident he cannot carry on the work of an agriculturist and hence, sought for compensation.

Though the owner of the maxicab admitted occurrence of the accident, he contended that since the vehicle was covered by insurance policy, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimant and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him. The insurer of maxicab filed its statement of objections denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and therefore, insurer was not liable to pay compensation. Hence, the insurer sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant in order to prove his case got himself examined as P.W. 5 and the doctor, who treated him, as P.W. 10. Common evidence was let in and documents were marked as Exs. P.1 to P.52. On behalf of the respondents, one Smt. Anupama N. Hegade was examined as R.W. 1 and Exs. R.1 to R.3 were marked.

On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the police records such as FIR, MV report, spot panchanama, etc., the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of maxicab by its driver, the accident had occurred and hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, period of hospitalisation and the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges. The Tribunal taking into consideration that the claimant was an agriculturist and no document was produced to prove the income, took the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month, the disability at 20% and the multiplier 13, awarded a sum of Rs. 93,600/- towards loss of future income due to disability. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. In all, the Tribunal awarded, total compensation of Rs. 1,44,600/- with interest at 9% per annum. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

The records disclose that the road traffic accident occurred on 25.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the maxicab. In the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries to head, face, back and compressed fracture of left spine and multiple and internal injuries all over body. Ex. P.21-wound certificate, discloses that the claimant sustained pain and tenderness on lumbar spine and fracture of L-2. He took treatment in the District Hospital, Belgaum, as an inpatient for a period of 6 days. Though the doctor assessed the disability to an extent of 35%, the Tribunal took the whole body disability at 20%. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/- per month is on the lower side.

Taking into consideration, the injuries sustained by the claimant, pain and suffering undergone by him, the claimant is entitled for another sum of Rs. 10,000/- in addition to Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering.

The claimant claimed that as on the date of the accident he was aged 50 years, an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. The accident is of the year 2010. Even coolies used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month during the relevant period. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on the lower side and therefore, the income of the claimant is to be taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Taking the income of the claimant as Rs. 5,000/- per month, the disability as 20% and applying the multiplier ''13'', the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- towards future loss of income as against Rs. 93,600/- awarded by the Tribunal and thus, there will be enhancement of Rs. 62,400/- under the said head. The claimant is also entitled for another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period.

The claimant has to lead his remaining life with the disability that he has sustained. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence, he is entitled for another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities.

The amount awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges is on the lower side. Since the claimant was inpatient for a period of six days, he is entitled for another sum of Rs. 8,000/- under the said head.

In all, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,10,400/- with 9% interest. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

"Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,10,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till deposit. The apportionment and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be as per the orders of the Tribunal."