Judgment:
N.K. Patil, J.
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th June 2006, passed in M.V.C. No. 1847/2005, on the file of the Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Mandya ('Tribunal' for short) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 42.500/- awarded in favour of the claimant appellant as against her claim of Rs. 08 lakhs, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be a housewife and a tailor. That on 04.06.2001, at about 11:30 A.M. the appellant along with others was walking on the left side of the road near Sathanur on Mandya-Keragodu road, for the purpose of washing the cloths at Canal. At that time, a scooter bearing No. KA-04/U-5085 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the appellant and as a result of the same, she sustained grievous injuries.
3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 08.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 27th June 2006. 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. 42.500/- with interest at 8% 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 is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future income and that the compensation awarded towards pain and sufferings, loss of income during the period of treatment, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and loss of amenities of life is inadequate and needs enhancement. Further, he submitted that, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 40% of both the eyes and opined that she is unable to perform tasks that require binocular vision. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.
5. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri. K.L. Sreenivas, inter alia, contended and substantiated that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. However, he fairly submitted that, having regard to the nature of profession and the injuries sustained by the appellant, reasonable enhancement may be made by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, after evaluation of the original records available on file and after perusal of the Impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration is as to:
Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation?
It is not in dispute that, on account of the accident that occurred on 04.06.2001, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries to both her eyes and she was in patient in the Mandya General Hospital and from there, she was taken to Bangalore for further treatment. The Doctor has advised her follow-up treatment and she has visited the Doctor on 20 occasions. It is the specific case of the appellant that she has spent substantial sum on her treatment and follow-up treatment, but the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the duration of treatment, nature of injuries etc. As per the evidence of the Ophthalmologist at the Minto Eye Hospital, the appellant has suffered sutured wound of about 3 Cms. on left forehead and mid dilated, fixed pupil in left eye and there was no perception of light in the left eye. Further, when she visited for follow-up treatment, he has observed that there is a visual loss in the left eye, and opined that there is a permanent disability to the extent of 40% to both eyes. Having regard all these aspects, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings is inadequate and needs enhancement. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
7. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future income. It is the case of the appellant that she is a tailor by profession and also a home maker. The Tribunal has taken her monthly income as Rs. 1,500/- for arriving at the loss of future income. The accident occurred during 2001. Having regard to the occupation of the appellant, we feel it appropriate to take her monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-. As stated earlier, as per the evidence of the Doctor, the appellant has suffered grievous injuries to her both eyes and has suffered visual loss of her left eye. The doctor has also, based on the case sheet and the wound certificate, Exs.P15 and P16 observed that she is unable to perform tasks that require binocular vision and there is less chance of recovery of vision, even if a further surgery is carried out. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we take the disability at 40% having regard to her occupation as tailor. She was aged 30 years as on the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier is '17' Accordingly, taking the disability at 40%, monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and adopting '17' multiplier, we award a sum of Rs. 2,44,800/- (i.e. Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 17 x 40/100) towards loss of future income.
8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Admittedly, the appellant has under gone a surgery and has taken follow-up treatment on 20 occasions. Therefore, she might have spent some amount on conveyance, food and other incidental expenses. Therefore, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges.
9. A sum of Rs. 4,500/- awarded towards loss of income during the period of treatment is not just and proper. We have taken the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month, having regard to her profession as tailor. She has taken treatment and follow-up treatment on 20 occasions. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment.
10. The Tribunal has slipped into an error in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities of life on account of disability. The appellant has suffered 40% disability in respect of both eyes. She has undergone a surgery and stated to have lost binocular vision of her left eye, which is very much necessary to perform her tailoring work. Admittedly, she cannot perform the said function as she was doing earlier and that the said unhappiness and discomfort persists for the rest of her life. Having regard to all these aspects and taking into consideration the evidence of the Doctor, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life on account of disability.
11. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards medical expenses appears to be just and reasonable and hence, it does not call for interference.
12. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 27th June 2006 passed in M.V.C. No. 1847/2005 is hereby modified awarding a sum of Rs. 3,53,800/- as against Rs. 42.500/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows:
i) Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-ii) Towards loss of income During the period of treatment Rs. 09,000/-iii) Towards loss of future income Rs. 2,44,800/-iv) Towards Conveyance, nourishingFood and attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-v) Towards Disability andloss of Amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-vi) Towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-------------------Total Rs. 3,53,800/-------------------
The second respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,11,300/- with 6% interest thereon, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,11,300/-, a sum of Rs. 02.00 lakhs shall be deposited in the name of the appellant in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of five years with permission to withdraw the quarterly interest. The remaining sum of Rs. 1,11,300/- shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.