Raju Vs. Dilawar D. Peerkhan and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1173114
CourtKarnataka Dharwad High Court
Decided OnJun-02-2014
Case NumberMiscellaneous First Appeal No. 20221 of 2010 (MV)
JudgeA.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
AppellantRaju
RespondentDilawar D. Peerkhan and Another
Excerpt:
m.v.act - section 173(1) - comparative citation: 2014 (4) kccr 3344,(prayer: this mfa is filed under section 173(1) of the m.v.act, against the judgement and award dated 19-11-2009, passed in mvc.no.1086/2007, on the file of the member, addl. mact, saundatti, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by m.a.c.t., the claimant has filed this appeal for awarding of just compensation by way of enhancement. 2. heard the learned advocates on both sides and perused the record. 3. 2nd respondent - insurance company which was fastened with the liability by the m.a.c.t. to pay the determined compensation has satisfied the award. thus, the finding recorded by the tribunal on issue no.1 has attained finality. in the circumstances, only point for consideration is: "whether the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner?" 4. accident in question occurred on 24.11.2006 and the petitioner suffered the following injuries: "1. fracture alveolar process of maxilla extending into hard palate. 2. comminuted fracture of left maxillary sinus with haematoma. 3. fracture of left zygomatic arch. 4. fracture of lateral wall of left orbit. 5. fracture of left ethmoid sinus complex with haematoma." 6. depressed fracture of left frontal bone extending into superior orbital ridge with associated soft tissues odema." 5. petitioner was employed as a clerk in a financial corporation. though he has claimed that he was earning rs.4,500/- per month, there being no credible evidence, the tribunal has rightly taken the income at rs.3,000/- per month. the petitioner could have produced salary certificate or examined the employer in proof of the salary. such an effort has not been made. 6. keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered, the period of treatment and the consequential permanent disability, the tribunal has not awarded just compensation under the head loss of amenities and is unjustified in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of income during laid up period as well as the incidental expenses incurred while undergoing treatment. in my opinion, with addition of rs.40,000/-, there would be just and reasonable compensation. in the result, appeal is allowed in part. impugned award is modified. compensation payable by respondent no.2 to the petitioner is determined at rs.3,11,700/-, which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. the determined compensation amount by the m.a.c.t. having been deposited, 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest before the m.a.c.t. within a period of eight weeks. upon deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimant.
Judgment:

(Prayer: This MFA Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of The M.V.Act, Against The Judgement And Award Dated 19-11-2009, Passed In Mvc.No.1086/2007, On The File Of The Member, Addl. Mact, Saundatti, Partly Allowing The Claim Petition For Compensation And Seeking Enhancement Of Compensation.)

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by M.A.C.T., the claimant has filed this appeal for awarding of just compensation by way of enhancement.

2. Heard the learned advocates on both sides and perused the record.

3. 2nd respondent - Insurance Company which was fastened with the liability by the M.A.C.T. to pay the determined compensation has satisfied the award. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 has attained finality. In the circumstances, only point for consideration is:

"Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner?"

4. Accident in question occurred on 24.11.2006 and the petitioner suffered the following injuries:

"1. Fracture alveolar process of maxilla extending into hard palate.

2. Comminuted fracture of left maxillary sinus with haematoma.

3. Fracture of left zygomatic arch.

4. Fracture of lateral wall of left orbit.

5. Fracture of left ethmoid sinus complex with haematoma."

6. Depressed fracture of left frontal bone extending into superior orbital ridge with associated soft tissues odema."

5. Petitioner was employed as a clerk in a Financial Corporation. Though he has claimed that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, there being no credible evidence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner could have produced salary certificate or examined the employer in proof of the salary. Such an effort has not been made.

6. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered, the period of treatment and the consequential permanent disability, the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under the head loss of amenities and is unjustified in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of income during laid up period as well as the incidental expenses incurred while undergoing treatment. In my opinion, with addition of Rs.40,000/-, there would be just and reasonable compensation.

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified. Compensation payable by respondent No.2 to the petitioner is determined at Rs.3,11,700/-, which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The determined compensation amount by the M.A.C.T. having been deposited, 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest before the M.A.C.T. within a period of eight weeks. Upon deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimant.