Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 956 (KAR)

S. R. Nagaraju v. Sudhakar Agencies, Suryapete

2011-09-23

N.K.PATIL

body2011
ORDER N.K. PATIL, J.—Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th August, 2008, passed in M.V.C. No. 135/1999, by the Fast Track Court-I and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,79,084/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 8,00,000/-, is inadequate. 3. The appellant claims to be aged about 32 years, a teacher by profession and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 5:30 p.m., on 3-8-1998, when the appellant along with his friend was travelling on a Hero Honda bearing Registration No. KA-06/K-8460, near Melekallahalli gate, on Sira-Nalligere Road, on the left side of the road, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry bearing No. KA-25/A-42, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained lacerated wound over the left eye, bleeding through both the ears, bleeding through nose, lacerated wound over the left temporal region sutured, lacerated sutured wound ever the left mastoid region, lacerated wound over the right parietal bone, lacerated wound over the left temporal region, lacerated wound over the mastoid bone, and left sided partial palsy. Due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gubbi and thereafter to Sridevi Nursing Home at Tumkur. Further, on the advise of the Doctor, he was shifted to Nimhans Parijma, Medical Centre and Victoria Hospital at Bangalore. 4. It is his further case that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has undergone severe pain and agony 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. 5. The learned counsel for appellant contends that the Tribunal is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and the compensation awarded towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is on the lower side. 5. The learned counsel for appellant contends that the Tribunal is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and the compensation awarded towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is on the lower side. Therefore, reasonable compensation may be awarded under the said heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly. 6. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant tiled the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 20th August, 2008. 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. 2,79,084/- 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. 7. 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 also Insurer. 8. After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation towards pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment period and loss of future income. Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for. 9. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and further erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in different Hospitals for a period of three months and under went skin grafting. During the treatment period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, the Doctor has assessed the functional disability at 80% and the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 27%. During the treatment period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, the Doctor has assessed the functional disability at 80% and the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 27%. The appellant being aged about only 32 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life and that he being a teacher, it would be difficult for him to perform his duties as also day to day activities, as he was performing earlier. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, percentage of permanent disability, as assessed by the Doctor and also Tribunal, age and avocation of the appellant and also the fact that he cannot to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, I deem it fit to award a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and un-happiness and Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, or totally a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. 10. 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 20th August, 2008, passed in M.V.C No. 135/1999, by the Fast Track Court-I and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. 11. The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, 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 and award. 12. On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. 13. Office to draw award, accordingly.