Putta Vs. C.K. Nagaraju and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(prayer: this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act, against the judgment and award dated: 07/09/2006 passed in mvc no.59/2003 on the file of the civil judge (sr.dn), motor accident claims tribunal, maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. this appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th september 2006, passed in mvc no.59/2003, by the civil judge (sr.dn), motor accident claims tribunal, maddur, (for short, 'tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for rs.15,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. the appellant claims to be aged about 28 years and a businessman, earning a sum of rs.250/- to rs.350/- per day and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. that the occurrence of accident at about 6:00 p.m, on 02-01-2003, when the appellant was standing in the hanakere circle for waiting the bus to go to thoreshettahalli, on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of bajaj boxer bearing no.ka-11/k- 3481, is not in dispute. it is also not in dispute that, the appellant has sustained injuries to head, legs, ear hugging bleeding from the ear at the above right eyebrow and fracture of parietal bone and also injuries on the neck. due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to mandya district hospital, where he took treatment from 01-01-2003 to 13-01-2003 and thereafter referred to jss hospital, mysore and also to holds worth memoria hospital and thereafter advised to get himself admitted at mandya government hospital and subsequently, he was refered to minto eye hospital. 3. it is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above and 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. 4. on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, before the tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of rs.15,00,000/- against the respondents. the said claim petition had come up for consideration before the tribunal on 7th september, 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.1,00,000/- under different heads, 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 is in appeal before this court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. 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 and the insurer. 6. learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charge, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness etc. to substantiate the said submission, he is quick to point out and submit that on account of the road traffic accident, the appellant sustained lacerated wound above the right eye apart from one abrasion at the neck and a fracture of frontal bone and posterior wall of right frontal rim, which is grievous in nature. he took treatment in various hospitals by spending huge amount and the doctor has assessed 40% permanent disability towards loss of vision. therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal. 7. the respondents are served and un- represented. 8. after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal, i am of the view that, the tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings and rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period. hence it does not call for interference. however, so far as other heads are concerned, the tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation and therefore, it requires enhancement. 9. after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained lacerated wound above the right eye apart from one abrasion at the neck and fracture of frontal bone and posterior wall of right fontal rim, and the said injury is stated to be grievous in nature. further, it is stated by the eye specialist that, the appellant has lost vision of eye at 40%. but the tribunal has disbelieved the said evidence. but, fact remains that on account of the grievous injuries caused to the eye, the appellant would have suffered certain discomfort and unhappiness and continues to be there for certain period. the appellant, being aged about only 28 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in various hospitals for some period. during the period of treatment, the appellant must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, i presume that he should have taken bed rest and further, during the period of treatment, he would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apartment from incidental and medical expenses. therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, i award a sum of rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against rs.60,000/- and rs.5,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as the tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the said head. 10. thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of rs.1,45,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum as against rs.1,00,000/- awarded by tribunal, and the break up is as follows: towards pain and sufferingsrs. 25,000/-towards medical expensesrs. 5,000/-towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant chargesrs. 5,000/-towards loss of earning during treatment periodrs. 10,000/-towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappinessrs. 1,00,000/-totalrs. 1,45,000/- in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. the impugned judgment and award dated 7th september 2006, passed in mvc no.59/2003, by the civil judge (sr.dn), motor accident claims tribunal, maddur, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of rs. 1,45,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, as against rs. 1,00,000/-, awarded by tribunal, excluding interest for the delayed period of 1108 days in filing the appeal. there would be an enhancement of compensation of rs. 45,000/- with 6% interest per annum. the third respondent - insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, excluding interest for the delayed period of 1108 days in filing the appeal. on such deposit by the insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. office to draw award, accordingly.

Judgment:

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 07/09/2006 passed in MVC No.59/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.)

1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th September 2006, passed in MVC No.59/2003, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs.15,00,000/-, is inadequate.

2. The appellant claims to be aged about 28 years and a businessman, earning a sum of Rs.250/- to Rs.350/- per day and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 6:00 P.M, on 02-01-2003, when the appellant was standing in the Hanakere circle for waiting the Bus to go to Thoreshettahalli, on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of Bajaj Boxer bearing No.KA-11/K- 3481, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the appellant has sustained injuries to head, legs, ear hugging bleeding from the ear at the above right eyebrow and fracture of parietal bone and also injuries on the neck. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Mandya District Hospital, where he took treatment from 01-01-2003 to 13-01-2003 and thereafter referred to JSS Hospital, Mysore and also to Holds Worth Memoria Hospital and thereafter advised to get himself admitted at Mandya Government Hospital and subsequently, he was refered to Minto Eye Hospital.

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

4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 7th September, 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.1,00,000/- under different heads, 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 is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. 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 and the Insurer.

6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charge, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness etc. To substantiate the said submission, he is quick to point out and submit that on account of the road traffic accident, the appellant sustained lacerated wound above the right eye apart from one abrasion at the neck and a fracture of frontal bone and posterior wall of right frontal rim, which is grievous in nature. He took treatment in various hospitals by spending huge amount and the Doctor has assessed 40% permanent disability towards loss of vision. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

7. The respondents are served and un- represented.

8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period. Hence it does not call for interference. However, so far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation and therefore, it requires enhancement.

9. After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained lacerated wound above the right eye apart from one abrasion at the neck and fracture of frontal bone and posterior wall of right fontal rim, and the said injury is stated to be grievous in nature. Further, it is stated by the Eye Specialist that, the appellant has lost vision of eye at 40%. But the Tribunal has disbelieved the said evidence. But, fact remains that on account of the grievous injuries caused to the eye, the appellant would have suffered certain discomfort and unhappiness and continues to be there for certain period. The appellant, being aged about only 28 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in various Hospitals for some period. During the period of treatment, the appellant must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, I presume that he should have taken bed rest and further, during the period of treatment, he would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apartment from incidental and medical expenses. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, I award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against Rs.60,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the said head.

10. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows:

Towards Pain and sufferings	Rs. 25,000/-
Towards medical expenses	Rs. 5,000/-
Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges	Rs. 5,000/-
Towards loss of earning during treatment period	Rs. 10,000/-
Towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness	Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total	Rs. 1,45,000/-

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 7th September 2006, passed in MVC No.59/2003, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, as against Rs. 1,00,000/-, awarded by Tribunal, excluding interest for the delayed period of 1108 days in filing the appeal. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with 6% interest per annum.

The third respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, excluding interest for the delayed period of 1108 days in filing the appeal. On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.