Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 817 (KAR)

Nanjundappa @ Nanjunda v. L. Mohan

2013-07-19

N.K.PATIL

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 6th February 2009, passed in MVC No.3816/2008, by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-15), (for short, 'Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.1,52,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs.13,20,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 18 years and working as an electrician, earning a sum of Rs.500/-per day and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 9:45 P.M, on 15-03-2008, near Doddakere Tank Bunt Road, on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 02/EH-9976 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained FMI fracture zygoma fracture nasal bone and he was treated with zygoma elevation + orbital ribs open reduction, internal fixation + nasal bone reduction orch/application. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, where he was in-patient from 16-03- 2008 to 25-03-2008 , for a period of nearly ten days. 3. It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above 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. 4. 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.13,20,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 6th February, 2009. 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.1,51,686/- 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. 5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. 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 the Insurer. 6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of income during treatment period and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and therefore, it requires enhancement. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and hence, interference in the same is not called for. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.86,286/-towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs.50,000/-towards injury, pain and sufferings. Hence it does not call for interference. However, so far as other heads, viz. loss of income during treatment period and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness are concerned, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation and therefore, it requires enhancement. 9. After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained FMI fracture zygoma fracture nasal bone and he was treated with zygoma elevation + orbital ribs open reduction, internal fixation + nasal bone reduction orch/application. PW3, Doctor has deposed that the appellant has sustained 15% disability to the whole body and further opined that the appellant has lost his memory and is getting head ache often. The appellant, being aged about only 18 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. It can be seen that the appellant was getting training in the work of Electrician. The appellant, being aged about only 18 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. It can be seen that the appellant was getting training in the work of Electrician. The injuries caused to the appellant would definitely come in the way of his day to day activities and therefore, he is definitely entitled to some compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, I presume that he would have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment at least for a period of three months. Further, a sum of Rs.60/- per day or Rs.2,400/-per month assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, I re-assess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-, to meet the ends of justice, for the purpose of calculating loss of income during treatment period. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, I award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against Rs.15,000/- and Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of three months as against Rs.5,400/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,65,286/-, with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.1,52,000/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows: Towards Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-Towards medical expenses and conveyance, Rs. 86,286/- nourishing food and attendant charges Towards loss of earning during treatment Rs. 09,000/-period Towards loss of amenities, discomfort and Rs. 20,000/- unhappiness Total Rs. 1,65,286/- 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 6th February 2009, passed in MVC No.3816/2008, by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-15), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs.1,65,286/-, with interest at 6% per annum, as against Rs.1,52,000/-, awarded by Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs.13,286/- with 6% interest per annum. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs.13,286/- with 6% interest per annum. The second respondent - Insurer 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. On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly.