Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 610 (KAR)

RAJAMMA @ CHINNATHAYL v. ASHA D'SOUZA

2016-08-07

S.SUJATHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, [the Tribunal', for short] in MVC No. 1542/2010. 2. Briefly stated the facts are : That the appellant-claimant met with the road traffic accident on 2.10.2010 owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-19-Y-7632. The appellant was admitted as an inpatient from 2.10.2010 to 11.10.2010 and again from 19.11.2010 to 3.11.2010 and she had undergone major surgery on her head besides taking treatment for six fractures. It transpires that the age of the injured at the time of the accident was about 62. it was contended that she was doing cloth lousiness by selling the same door to door and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Based on these facts, the claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 90,700/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Sri. K. Ranjan Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the impugned Judgment and order would contend that the Tribunal awarded a meager compensation under different heads brushing aside the evidence placed on record, more particularly, the aged lady had suffered head injury as well as six fractures on her face which was evident from Exhibit.P3 and medical records. 4. Learned Counsel would submit that the injured was hospitalized for 26 days and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is abysmally low which necessarily requires interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. R. Rajagopalan, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer would contend that the Tribunal extensively appreciating the evidence on record, awarded just and reasonable compensation which cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is discerned from the records that the injured was aged about 62 at the time of the accident and it is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Insured and he contends that the age of the injured was 70 at the time of the accident as per the medical records. 7. It is discerned from the records that the injured was aged about 62 at the time of the accident and it is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Insured and he contends that the age of the injured was 70 at the time of the accident as per the medical records. Be that as it may, the injured was an aged lady who was said to have been earning her livelihood by selling clothes door to door. It is an admitted fact that the injured has suffered multiple fractures on her face besides head injury. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. In the background of the age and nature of the injuries sustained by the injured, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation towards pain and suffering to Rs. 45,000/-. It is obvious that the aged person has to be provided suitable compensation in order to facilitate her to lead a respectable life in the evening of her life. It is noticed that a sum of Rs. 7,200/- is awarded towards food, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The same is modified to Rs. 10,000/- as the injured was hospitalized for 26 days and has taken treatment as an inpatient which necessarily required the attendant charges and the extra nourishment for 26 days with further follow up treatment. A sum of Rs. 6,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period re-determining the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 2,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. A sum of Rs. 2,500/- is awarded towards conveyance charges for 26 days and thereafter for the follow up treatment. 8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under : SI.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.] 1. Pain and sufferings 45,0001 2. Medical expenses 50,000 3. Food, extra nourishment and attendant charges 10,000 4. Loss of earnings during laid up period 6,000 5. Loss of amenities 10,000 6. Conveyance 2,500 Total 1,23,500 9. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 1,23,500/- as against Rs. 90,700/-. The appellant shall be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,23,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.