N.K. Patil, J.@mdashThis appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 10/07/2013, passed in MVC No. 189/2010, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar, (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as against the claim of Rs. 6,50,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 27.3.2010 the appellant was traveling from Harihar to Ranebennur in TVS XL Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA.17.Q.3153 along with one Mohammed Rafiq as a pillion rider. When they came near old Karur Cross on NH.4 at Ranebennur at about 3.45 p.m. the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA.27.A.199 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit to Motor cycle. On account of which, appellant sustained grievous injuries and pillion rider died on the spot. Immediately, he was shifted to City Central hospital, Davanagere, where he took treatment from 27.3.2010 to 7.4.2010 and from 1.6.2010 to 7.6.2010 and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.
3. It is the further case of the appellant that, he has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 30%. Therefore, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.
4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,96,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month which is on the lower side and is liable to be reassessed reasonably, on the ground that, appellant was working in the Saloon at Harihar and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and in view of permanent disability suffered by him on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, it is very difficult for him to continue his profession as he is not in a position to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, as he cannot stand continuously. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered into or appreciated or awarded any reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities due to disability by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. PW3-Dr. Nagabhushan has issued disability certificate as per Ex. P7 and deposed that the fracture resulted into physical disability to the extent of 30%. But he is not the treated doctor and he has assessed the disability on the previous medical records. But in the cross examination, he has admitted that fractured bone was united and percentage of disability is in respect of affected limb. The Tribunal has justified in assessing the disability at 10% to the whole body i.e. 1/3rd of 30% assessed by the Doctor to affected limb and the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month and in adopting multiplier 18 since he was aged abut 35 years and I accept the same as just and reasonable and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
8. Further, it emerges that the Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him, the pain and sufferings undergone by him during that period, and after assigning valid reasons in paras 17 to 19 of its judgment, has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 23,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance and other incidental charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 15,000/- towards discomfort in future life and Rs. 1,08,000/- towards disability and in all, Rs. 1,96,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., which is just and proper and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for, nor I find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the same. Even the appellant has not made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Ordered accordingly.
