Judgment:
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.
1. Petitioner is the appellant. He had filed MVC 5284/2002 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - V, Bangalore City, contending that, while he working as a loader and un-loader in Mini Lorry No. KA-04-7918, on account of its rash and negligent driving by its driver, at 2:30 p.m. on 01.08.2001, he met with an accident and thereby sustained severe injuries. He was taken to the hospital, wherein he obtained treatment as an inpatient. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation from the respondents. The said petition was taken up for consideration along with MVC 5384/2002. The respondents being the owner and insurer of the said vehicle, filed separate written statements opposing the claim petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court raised the issues.
2. Petitioner deposed as PW-1 and examined the doctor to prove the injuries sustained by him and the resultant effects thereof on him. Respondents did not lead any evidence. On consideration of the record and the rival contentions, the tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding compensation of Rs. 44,500/- with Interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in the court. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner has preferred this appeal to modify the award and to allow the claim in full.
3. The finding of the tribunal with regard to Issue No. 1, i.e., the actionable negligence on the part of driver of said vehicle and the petitioner sustaining injuries on account thereof has become final. The same is not under challenge.
4. Sri K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the tribunal has failed to appreciate the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, as he had blunt injury over abdomen and underwent exploratory laparotamy and repair of lunar laceration, as well as operation for suturing blunt injury over the abdomen, which resulted in pain and sufferings, mental agony and shock and consequently the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is meager. He further contended that, the tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-4 in the proper perspective. Learned Counsel pointed out that, PW-4 has deposed about the scar mark and that the blunt injury remains at the place of injury, which will continue till rest of his life and that the appellant has also suffered 30% permanent disability, to the whole body. It was contended that, despite the credible evidence, the awarding of compensation at Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of amenities is meager. Learned Counsel further contended that, the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant was an inpatient for 15 days and he incurred expenses towards medical care, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and the amount awarded in respect of thereof is meager and not just. Learned Counsel further contended that the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant was doing coolie work and because of the injuries on the abdomen, he could not do the work for more than 6 months and there is substantial loss of income, without noticing of which, the amount of Rs. 4500A awarded, is meager. Learned Counsel contended that there is 30% permanent disability, resulting in reduction of future earning capacity and no amount has been awarded thereunder. Learned Counsel contended that the award of the tribunal is unjust and hence calls for reconsideration.
5. Per contra, Sri D.S. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the insurance company contended that, the tribunal has awarded just compensation and no enhancement is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the above, the point for consideration is:
Whether the tribunal has awarded the just compensation? If not, is the appellant entitled to any enhanced compensation?
7. Appellant has deposed as PW-1. He has stated that, he took treatment as an inpatient on account of the accidental injuries in the CSI Hospital at Chikkaballapur for about 16 days and later on, as an outpatient for about 6 months and incurred the expenditure including travel, food, attendant charges apart from treatment. He has further deposed that, he was hale and healthy prior to the accident and while working as a loader and un-loader, he was earning Rs. 5000/- per month and due to the injury caused to the abdomen, he cannot bend the body and do any difficult & hard work and he is getting pain if he bends his body. Ex.P-7 is the wound certificate. Ex.P-10 series are the medical bills. In the cross-examination he has stated that he was working under one lagannath and was getting Rs. 150/- per day. His statement that he sustained injuries as a result of the accident has not been disputed and he has denied the suggestion that he has not suffered any disability due to accidental injuries and that he is completely cured. PW-4 is Dr. B.D. Joshi, who has stated that, he examined PW-1 and he found extensive abdominal scar right paramedian incision from epigastric region to right supra pubic region and Incision extending on to right chest wall. After examination, he has assessed the disability and according to him, the total disability on the whole body is about 30%. He has produced the OPD card at Ex.P-15. The suggestions put to him about the complete recovery by PW-1 has been denied and he has also denied that the assessment of disability at 30% is not correct. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the pain and suffering undergone, the period of treatment, evidence of PW-2, there is merit in the contentions as urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. Considering the nature of injuries and consequential pain and suffering, It would be just to award additional compensation of Rs. 8,500/- under the head pain and suffering. The injuries have deprived the appellant of the normal pleasures of life. Hence, it would be just and reasonable to award an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head loss of amenities.
8. Though PW-1 has deposed that he was out of work for about 6 months i.e., while taking treatment and the period of recovery, the amount awarded at Rs. 75/- per day or Rs. 2250/- per month and at Rs. 4500/- only is meager. Even by taking the Income at Rs. 2250/- per month, to recover completely, the appellant must have taken substantial time. Hence it would be reasonable to award a further sum of Rs. 4,500/- under the head loss of income during the treatment period.
9. Though the tribunal has noticed the evidence of PW-4, who has stated that the appellant has 30% disability to the whole body but noticing that there is no disability certificate and that PW-4 had not treated the petitioner at the time of the accident and that he only examined him, no amount was awarded under the head loss of future? income reduction in earning capacity. Looking into the nature of injuries sustained by PW-1, the evidence of PW-4 which is acceptable keeping in view the record of the case, the appellant has established that he has suffered 30% disability to the whole body and hence there is reduction in future earning capacity. Considering his monthly income at Rs. 2250/- and the percentage of disability at 30 and keeping in view his age, the multiplier applicable is '17'. As a result thereof, there is loss of future income at Rs. 1,37,700/-. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 1,55,700/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 1,55,000/-, which would be the just compensation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and additional compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- is awarded, which shall carry interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit in the tribunal. The second respondent shall deposit the said amount in the tribunal within a period of 3 months from today. No costs.
Registry is directed to draw modified award.