Parameshwarappa S/O. SiddappA. Vs. H.S. Parvathappa S/O. P. Shivalingappa, and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr.justice subhash b adi, j.] this m.f.a is filed under section 173(1) of mv act against the judgment and award dt. 24.7.2007 passed in mvc no.642/2006 on the file of the principal civil judge (sr. dn.) and addl. mact, davanagere and etc.1. respondent no.1 is the owner of the vehicle. the insurer has not disputed its liability. hence, notice to respondent no. 1 is dispensed with.2. there is delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are tiled. cause shown is accepted. delay condoned.3. this is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 24.08.2005. he had sought for compensation of rs.5.00.000/ . however, the tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, has granted a global compensation of rs.50,000/-. the claimant, being unsatisfied with the said award, has filed this appeal. no appeal is filed by the insurer.4. it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injury in a road accident and the offending vrhicle was insured with the insurer. ex.p.3 - wound certificate discloses four injuries, which are as under:1. intraparechymal bleed in the right thalamaus2. fracture anterior and pcstenodateral wall of left maxillary sinus with hemosiisus3. multiple calcified granulomas are noted in the both parietal lobes.4. cerebral edfma.5. out of which, two injuries are grievous in nature. the hospital records show that the claimant was inpatient from 24.8.2005 to 26.8.2005. thereafter, he was admitted again on 26.8.2005 to 5.10.2005. in all, 42 days. however, the tribunal has not accepted the medical evidence, as the doctor has not been examined in this ease and has awarded the global compensation. in case, where a claimant has suffered fracture and head injury, it cannot be said that the claimant has not suffered pain and agony and consequential expenditure and also the percentage of disability. the tribunal, only on the ground that the doctor is not examined, ought not have discarded the injured evidence and granted global compensation of rs.50.000/-. in my opinion, the claimant must have taken treated for three months for his fracture and also must have incurred expenditure. taking into consideration. i find additional sum of 40,000/- could be granted on the heads of pain and suffering, loss of income during the laid up period, future amenities and incidental charges. hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of rs.40.000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest. appeal is allowed in part.6. sri. k.n. srinivasa, learned counsel, is directed to file vakalth within four weeks.

Judgment:
1. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. The insurer has not disputed its liability. Hence, notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with.

2. There is delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are tiled. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.

3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 24.08.2005. He had sought for compensation of Rs.5.00.000/ . However, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, has granted a global compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The claimant, being unsatisfied with the said award, has filed this appeal. No appeal is filed by the insurer.

4. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injury in a road accident and the offending vrhicle was insured with the insurer. Ex.P.3 - wound certificate discloses four injuries, which are as under:

1. Intraparechymal bleed in the right thalamaus

2. Fracture anterior and pcstenodateral wall of left maxillary sinus with hemosiisus

3. Multiple calcified granulomas are noted in the both parietal lobes.

4. Cerebral edfma.

5. Out of which, two injuries are grievous in nature. The hospital records show that the claimant was inpatient from 24.8.2005 to 26.8.2005. Thereafter, he was admitted again on 26.8.2005 to 5.10.2005. In all, 42 days. However, the Tribunal has not accepted the medical evidence, as the doctor has not been examined in this ease and has awarded the global compensation. In case, where a claimant has suffered fracture and head injury, it cannot be said that the claimant has not suffered pain and agony and consequential expenditure and also the percentage of disability. The Tribunal, only on the ground that the Doctor is not examined, ought not have discarded the injured evidence and granted global compensation of Rs.50.000/-. In my opinion, the claimant must have taken treated for three months for his fracture and also must have incurred expenditure. Taking into consideration. I find additional sum of 40,000/- could be granted on the heads of pain and suffering, loss of income during the laid up period, future amenities and incidental charges. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.40.000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest. Appeal is allowed in part.

6. Sri. K.N. Srinivasa, learned Counsel, is directed to file vakalth within four weeks.