Vasaritharaj a v. Sri, Venkaiesha

hospital. Cli kniaszalur and after firsi aid. lw ts I ikcn ii1e Crc oolMt lit took treat ne’n “ in tuticilt from 28-yb- N)10 r1, i:i 4)7 2010 and rlieitaftcr he iook u:’alnienr a- ow patient f ‘i _Wfl m ,rft 1’ r 1 1 1 ‘ 1’ till ‘ ls’ a’ c. ‘den I .rts ‘ii il g”rt - r’ (It Petit’ .Iflu .1.4()in dflJ 1 1,i t1it oI1trT.’ “ ti” 9 J(S ‘ 4 I I flC it t I I S I ‘ ‘ .1. n ) ? a1’fl ‘• -i - ttt 4 expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.

4. The learned counsel for appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, loss of income during treatment period and not awarding any compensation towards loss of future Income, on account of disability. Therefore, he submits that reasonable compensation may be awarded under the said heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.

5. On account of the injuries sustained In the accident, the appellant ified the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. before the Tribunal, seeking compensation a sum of ZlO,00.000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 15” October. 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, 5 allowed the claim petition in part. awarding a sum of 1,25.000/- 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 betbre this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. 1 have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned Judgment and award passed by Thbunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Insurer.

7. After careful perusal of the impugned Judgment and award passed by Tribunal, It can be seen that, the Thbunal has erred In not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads except towards medical expenses. Further, the Thbunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account. of disability. Admittedly. due to the injuries sustained in the . the appellant was Inpatient in different .4... 6 Hospitals for different period. During the treatment periods In different Hospitals, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges and also suffered unsaid pain and agony. PW2 the Orthopedic Surgeon has stated in his evidence that the appellant has approached him with complaint of pain and difficulty In carrying heavy weight and on examination, he found washing In calf region, on radiological examination, and also found that the fracture Is united and Intra meduflary nail Is seen with screws and the appellant suffers with permanent disabifity of 20% towards right leg and 10% In respect of whole body. In support of the testimony, he has produced the disabifity certificate at Ex.P48 and Ex.P53 - X-ray. The appellant being aged about only 35 years, has to endure the dlsabifity for the rest of his life and It would be difficult for him to perform his day to day activities, as earlier. Therefore, having regard to the nature of Injuries, fracture of both bones of right leg, age and avocation of the appellant and nature and 7 duration of treatment, disability and also the fact that he cannot to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, I deem it lIt to award a global compensation of a sum of 6O,00O/-, with Interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.

8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal ified by appellant Is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment and award dated 15th October 2011 passed In MVC No.702/2010 by the Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court. Member. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur. Is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of ?60,000/-, with Interest at 696 per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. In addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The third respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of 60,0O0/-. 4th Interest thereon at 636 per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks —a S. Ironi ite titti )I ft Cr101 iii ‘opv ol iii pul ‘rnt’nl and c 1(1 On %jlrh £1. ‘‘1 1St! liv th Tyt%t1r,- ‘hr vTi’irt 1P’ I inunt diateh. 1 )l j€ I (f Jr a 01 r4 bTV’