1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 4.7.2015 passed by MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in MVC 3857/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 15.5.2013 at about 9.30 a.m. when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-H-9044 near B.M.Sree Junction, 100 feet road, Indiranagar, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MH-4207 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and caused accident. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW-1, another witness as PW-2 and Dr.S.U.Shiva as PW-3, and submitted 15 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 3,41,516/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimant claims that he was working as Tailor and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as merely as Rs. 7,000/- p.m.
Secondly, PW-3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 23% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 15% while calculating 'loss of future income'.
Thirdly, under the head of 'loss of amenities', the Tribunal has granted compensation as merely as Rs. 20,160/-.
Hence, the learned counsel for the claimant prays for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing tailoring work and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, he has not produced any document to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, PW-3 is not the treating doctor and hence, the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries has rightly taken the whole body disability at 15% while calculating the 'loss of future income'.
Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all other heads is just and proper.
Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.5.2013. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture dislocation of right ankle.
7. The claimant claims that he was doing tailoring work and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. But the same is not established by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the claimant notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2013, the income should be taken notionally as Rs. 8,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in assessing the claimant's income as merely Rs. 7,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the claimant's income from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month.
8. Since the income of the claimant is enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 24,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 3 months) under the head "loss of income during laid up period" as against Rs. 21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Considering the nature of injuries, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, this Court enhances the compensation from Rs. 20,160/- to Rs. 40,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.
10. The claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 16. His income is assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per month. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that claimant has suffered disability of 23% to the whole body. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, has rightly taken the disability to whole disability at 15%. Therefore, the 'loss of future income' works out to Rs. 2,30,400/- (8000 x 12 x 16 x 15%) and it is awarded as against Rs. 2,01,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified. The claimant is entitled to receive the following compensation:
|Compensation under different Heads||As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)||As awarded by this Court (Rs.)|
|Pain and sufferings||50,000||50,000|
|Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges||10,000||10,000|
|Loss of income during laid up period||21,000||24,000|
|Loss of future income||201,600||230,400|
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
|Loss of amenities ||20,160 ||40,000 |
|Total ||341,516 ||393,156|
12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit, with the learned Tribunal, the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the claimant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity.