Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1100 (KAR)

S. Umesh v. Veerabhadra Naik

2011-11-15

N.K.PATIL, V.SURI APPA RAO

body2011
JUDGMENT N.K. PATIL, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 20-9-2006 passed in MVC 5774/2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore;, The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,26,855/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of evidence (24-3-2005) till the date of deposit as against the claim of Rs. 14,65,584/- on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident. Since the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement. 2. The brief facts of the ease are, the appellant claimed that he was aged 40 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident. On 5-4-2003 at about 8.20 p.m. when the appellant was travelling in a motorcycle with his two children from Mudigere towards Handpost, at Munjrabad Circle in front of Mini Engineering Works, a lorry bearing No. KA 02 A 1191 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the appellant and his two children sustained grievous injuries and both the children succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, he filed three claim, petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. When the matters came up before the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and his avocation, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 1,26,855/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. We have heard the learned, counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the insurance company. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant at the out-set is that the Tribunal has not awarded fair and reasonable compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and requires enhancement. 5. As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it is amended after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. 6. 5. As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it is amended after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. 6. After careful consideration of the submissions made on both sides and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point for consideration is: “whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?” 7. The occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute, He sustained head injury, fracture and dislocation of right shoulder, He might have spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendant charges. He might have taken treatment as an in-patient as well as out-patient. He has to suffer the discomfort through-out his life. He being an Engineer, his nature of work is to be present at the work-spot giving instructions and standing through-out. This has not been looked into by the Tribunal. 8. After re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence nature of injuries sustained and the avocation of the appellant, we deem it fit and proper to award Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 92551/- towards medical expenses after excluding the amount reimbursed by the State Government. Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- as against. Rs. 10,000/-towards discomfort, loss of amenities. Rs. 1.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning during treatment period is just and proper and does not call for interference. 9. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,97,551/- as against. Rs. 1,26,855/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 70,696/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal Is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 20-9-2006 passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to MVC No. 5774/2003 is hereby modified awarding compensation of Rs. 70,696/- with interest at 6% p.m. from the date of petition fill the date of deposit in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The impugned common judgment and award dated 20-9-2006 passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to MVC No. 5774/2003 is hereby modified awarding compensation of Rs. 70,696/- with interest at 6% p.m. from the date of petition fill the date of deposit in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within three weeks from, the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and award and the same shall be released to the appellant. Office to draw decree accordingly.