Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 351 (KAR)

Md. Arif v. P. Kamallal

2016-04-12

S.SUJATHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar in MVC No. 594/2011. 2. Briefly stated the facts are. -that the claimant being grievously injured in the road traffic accident which occurred on 03-10-2011 on NH-9 road in front of Ambedkar Bhavan in the limits of Mannaekhelli village, involving vehicle bearing registration No. AP-13/F-5229, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 30,10,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. The Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 4,56,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Being dissatisfied the appellant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries due to the motor vehicle accident and is crippled for the entire life. It is contended that the injured has undergone four major surgeries and his right limb above knee is amputated. PW.2/the doctor has adduced evidence assessing permanent disability of the injured at 100%. The Tribunal without any valid basis, ignored the crucial evidence of the doctor and assessed the permanent disability of the injured at 50% contrary to the evidence on record. It is also contended that the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 3,000/- which is grossly on a lower side. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant more particularly, the inconvenience and discomfort which he is required to face for the rest of his life. Even, pain and suffering undergone by the injured during the period of treatment and the post-treatment period is not considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he seeks for awarding of compensation under the different heads viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities, expenses incurred during hospitalization period and loss of income during the hospitalization and the laid up period. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer justifying the award passed by the Tribunal would contend that the Tribunal after extensively considering the evidence available on record has awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. It is contended that even according to the schedule prescribed under Workmen's Compensation Act the permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal at 50% is appreciable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. It is contended that even according to the schedule prescribed under Workmen's Compensation Act the permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal at 50% is appreciable and does not call for any interference by this Court. Learned counsel would also point out that the doctor's evidence is an exaggeration of the factual aspects which cannot be accepted in the absence of any supportive material. Even in all other respects, the Tribunal having analysed the evidence on record has awarded the adequate compensation. Accordingly, she seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the motor vehicle accident and his right lower limb above knee is amputated. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant has undergone four surgeries and was hospitalized for 14 days as an inpatient for the medical treatment in various hospitals. This is the case of hale and healthy 26 years young boy turning cripple for his entire life. The injured appellant has to undergo a number of tribulations and inconveniences for the rest of his life, besides depending upon the artificial limbs or the attenders for his day to day regular work, Even, if the doctor's evidence is considered as an exaggeration, considering the schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the wound certificate Ex. P-9 coupled with Ex.P-7 the discharge records of Yashoda Hospital, the permanent disability of the appellant would be safely assessed at 75% as the right lower limb above knee is amputated. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has adopted the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- which is on a lower side compared to the normal method of determination of monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- of a road traffic accident victim of the year 2011, applying the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 6,000/-, loss of future earning works out to Rs. 9,18,000/-. 8. It is also perused from the records that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during the hospitalization and laid up period. 6,000/-, loss of future earning works out to Rs. 9,18,000/-. 8. It is also perused from the records that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during the hospitalization and laid up period. Considering the factual background of this case and the pain and suffering which the appellant had undergone for the amputation and the related surgeries, it would be appropriate to award the compensation under these heads. It is also discerned from the record that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards the medical expenses to an extend of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, Ex.P.11, the final bill of Yashoda Hospital reveals an amount of Rs. 1,28,523/- and Exs. R13, 14 and 15 reveals the cost of artificial limb at Rs. 86,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-. These bills at any stretch of imagination cannot be disputed by the insurer. The Tribunal erred in ignoring these bills and awarding the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the medical expenses. Considering all these factual aspects, I am of the considered opinion, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be modified as under; Towards pain and suffering 750,000/- Loss of amenities 750,000/- Loss of income during hospitalization and laid up period including attendant charges, food and diet etc. 725,000/- Loss of future earning 79,18,000/- Medical expenses 73,14,520/- Loss of marriage prospects 750,000/- Total 714,07,520/- Rounded off to Rs. 14,08,000/-. 9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 14,08,000/- as against Rs. 4,56,000/-. The awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of the petition till realization. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.