Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 406 (KAR)

B. Siddaraju v. C. Swamy

2012-04-20

N.K.PATIL

body2012
JUDGMENT N.K. Patil , J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 31st July, 2007 passed in MVC No. 1730/2005 by the Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, (for short, "Tribunal") for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 69,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 3,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 28 years and doing business in eggs, earning a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 8:10 p.m. on 20th March, 2003, when the appellant was going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-05/FJ-1006, near Maddur, Old M.C. Road, near inner gate of the Government General Hospital, on account of rash and negligent driving by the rider of the said vehicle is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained bleeding from right ear, multiple abrasions on the face and moderate head injury. CT scan disclosed mild diffuse cerebral edema and when the appellant was examined, it revealed impairment in motor speed, category fluency, working memory and comprehension. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, at Mandya and thereafter, to NIMHANS, Bangalore and thereafter, to one Balaji Nursing Home at Bangalore. In all, he to treatment for about 8 days as inpatient and thereafter, took follow-up treatment. 2. It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above and the Doctor has stated has the aforesaid injuries are suggestive of pre-dominant frontal lobe injury but, it may be temporary and the current disability is 25-30% and the appellant cannot do independent business due to lack of concentration and working memory. For the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medial expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably. 3. 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. 3,00,000/- against the respondents. 3. 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. 3,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 31st July, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in apart, awarding a sum of Rs. 69,000/- under different heads, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the amount is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 5. After careful perusal of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that on account of the injuries, he took treatment in three Hospitals including at NIMHANS, Bangalore and was in-patient for about eight days. But, the compensation awarded by Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. During the period of treatment, the appellant must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. Having regard to the age and the nature of injuries sustained, I presume that he would have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment at least for a period of four months. Further, during the period of treatment, he would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental and medical expenses. PW-2, Doctor has specifically stated that the injuries sustained by the appellant are suggestive of predominant frontal lobe injury, but, it may be temporary and the current disability is 25 to 30% and the appellant cannot do independent business due to lack of concentration and working memory. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal as the income of the appellant is on the lower side and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained and the year of accident. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal as the income of the appellant is on the lower side and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained and the year of accident. I re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against Rs. 35,000/-; Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month for a period of four months as against Rs. 12,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs. 69,000/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows : 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 31st July, 2007 passed in MVC No. 1730/2005 by the Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, on the enhanced compensation, as against Rs. 69,000/- awarded by Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs. 44,000/- with 6% interest per annum. 6. The first respondent-owner 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 and award. 7. On such deposit by the first respondent, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. 8. Office to draw award, accordingly.