Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1306 (KAR)

Pramila Bala Bandekar v. Divisional Controller

2020-07-02

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The claimant is before this court praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under common judgment and award dated 26.12.2015 in MVC No.1000/2015 and connected with other MVCs arising out of the same accident on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, and AMACT, Belagavi. 2. The injured claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for the accidental injury sustained in Motor Vehicles accident that occurred on 01.09.2014 involving bus bearing No.KA-31/F-1299. The accident involving the above stated bus and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The injured claimant is before this court in this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Based on the material placed before it, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,05,016/- on the following heads with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 1 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 2 Medicine and hospital charges 57,216/- 3 Nourishment charges 2,000/- 4 Attendant and conveyance charges 3,000/- 5 Loss of income during treatment period 18,000/- 6 Loss of future income 64,800/- 7 Loss of amenities and future happiness 30,000/- TOTAL 2,05,016 4. While awarding the above compensation the tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month and assessed the whole body disability at 10%. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation passed by the tribunal is before this court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-NWKRTC. Perused the tribunal records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the injured was doing tailoring work and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. But, the tribunal assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the claimant taking through the evidence of PW2 prays for enhancement of compensation. 7. Further learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of disability by the tribunal is also on the lower side and prays for enhancing the disability taking note of the injury sustained by the claimant and treatment taken by her as inpatient for 26 days. 7. Further learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of disability by the tribunal is also on the lower side and prays for enhancing the disability taking note of the injury sustained by the claimant and treatment taken by her as inpatient for 26 days. It is also his submission that the compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the lower side. It is his submission that the injured was out of employment for more than six months and the compensation awarded on the head of loss of future income is also on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper. It is his submission that no materials are placed on record to establish the income of the injured. As such, notional income assessed by the tribunal is correct. He also submits that PW2 the doctor who examined on behalf of the claimant has stated that the claimant suffers from 30% injury to left upper limb and the disability assessed by the tribunal at 1/3rd is proper and correct. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the income of the injured claimant assessed by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is proper and correct? 2. Whether the claimant would be entitled for the enhanced compensation? 10. Answer to the above point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative for the following reasons: 11. The accident is of the year 2014. The claimant states that she was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. But she has not placed on record any material to establish her income. In the absence of any material to establish the income, the courts will have to assess the income notionally. 12. The income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is on the lower side. Normally this court and the Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would take the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- notionally. In the absence of any material to establish the income, the courts will have to assess the income notionally. 12. The income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is on the lower side. Normally this court and the Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would take the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- notionally. In the instant case, in the absence of any material to establish the income of the injured, we deem it appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- per month. 13. The tribunal assessed the disability of the appellant-claimant at 10%. The doctor PW2 examined on behalf of claimant has stated that the claimant suffers 30% disability to left upper limb. The tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 1/3rd of the disability stated by the doctor at 10%. Same is in accordance with decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar V.Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 . Thus, we are of the view that the same needs no interference. 14. It is stated that the injured was inpatient for 26 days. Due to accident, she has sustained grievous multiple fracture injuries to the left hand i.e., compound comminuted fracture to left hand and her left hand was disfigured. She sustained grievous injury to head and neck back bone waist, lost of skin nervous. Took treatment at KMC Hospital, Hubli as an impatient, underwent surgery by spending Rs.2 lakhs. 15. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment taken as inpatient for two months and doctor evidence, we feel that the compensation awarded on the head of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and other heads are on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. As such, another sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded in addition to what is awarded by the tribunal on the head of pain and suffering and also a sum of Rs.40,000/- in addition to what is awarded by the tribunal on the head of loss of amenities and future happiness. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- on the head of nourishment and attendant charges is on the lower side. The claimant was in hospital for more than two months, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded under the head of nourishment charges and attendant and conveyance charges. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- on the head of nourishment and attendant charges is on the lower side. The claimant was in hospital for more than two months, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded under the head of nourishment charges and attendant and conveyance charges. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation as under : 1 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 2 Medicine and hospital charges 57,216/- 3 Nourishment charges 10,000/- 4 Attendant and conveyance 10,000/- 5 Loss of income during treatment period (7500X3) 22,500/- 6 Loss of future income (7500x12x9x10%) 81,000/- 7 Loss of amenities and future happiness 70,000/- TOTAL 3,00,716/- 16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,00,716/- as against Rs.2,05,016/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The appeal is allowed in part. The respondent -Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by this court with up to date interest from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Draw the modified award accordingly.