Suri Appa Rao, J.@mdashThis appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 26th November 2008 passed in M.V.C.8865/2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 28.4.2005 after attending the marriage, the appellant was returning in a car bearing No. KA.02.P.9258 belonging to her husband which was driven by one Venkatesh, driver. At about 5.15 a.m. when they reached Kogganuru village. Davanagere Taluk, one lorry bearing No. AP.20.U.9478 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. Due to the impact, appellant sustained grievous injuries. On a complaint against the driver of the Lorry, Davanagere Rural Police have registered a criminal case in Cr.No. 125/2005 and after investigation, the charge-sheet is also filed in CC No. 115/2005 against the driver of the lorry. The appellant was immediately shifted to City Medical Center at Davanagere and then shifted to Malya Hospital. She has sustained fracture of shaft of right femur, cerebral concussion with compound comminuted depressed fracture of bifrontal region. She underwent operation on 30.4.2005 and internal fixation was done. She was discharged from the hospital. She filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Bangalore, claiming compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs.
3. Before the Tribunal, appellant is examined as PW1. She also examined Dr. Sunil Kumar, attached to Malya Hospital, where she took treatment as PW2 and filed Exs.P1 to P15.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant, Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- on different counts.
5. Not being satisfied with the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal, appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that, after she was discharged from the hospital, she is unable to do any work. Therefore, she resigned her job and now not earning anything and thereby lost her future earning capacity on account of the injuries sustained by her.
7. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurer submitted that, the appellant resigned job on her own accord and there is no medical evidence to prove that she is not capable to attend any work after the accident.
8. The point for consideration is:
Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
9. The medical evidence produced by the appellant clearly indicates that, immediately, after the accident she was admitted in City Medical Center at Davanagere, after that, she was shifted to Malya Hospital, she underwent operation on 30.4.2005 and she took treatment from 30.4.2005 to 9.5.2005.
10. PW2-Medical Officer, who treated the injured in Malya Hospital has stated in his evidence that, the appellant is suffering from disability to the extent of 35% to the right lower limb and 13% to the whole body. The evidence of PW2 was not challenged with regard to the quantum of disability sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident. The fact that the appellant suffered fractured injury on the bifrontal region and fracture of shaft of right femur clearly indicate that she became permanently disabled on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident. Therefore, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced to some extent considering the nature of injuries, the period of treatment taken by the appellant and in view of the fact that she underwent operation. We, therefore, feel that, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant produced the medical bills for Rs. 28,000/-, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000/- - and therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 28,000/- as against Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as per the medical evidence produced by her. In view of the fact that the appellant has undergone operation and took treatment as inpatient for a considerable time, appellant is entitled to Rs. 15.000/- towards incidental expenses as against Rs. 10,000/ -awarded by the Tribunal.
11. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of earnings during the laid up period, which is just and reasonable and we do not want to disturb the same.
12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of amenities in future life, which appears to be on lower side. We, therefore, feel that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- is just and reasonable on account of the permanent disability sustained by the appellant as against Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under both heads. Thus, there would be an enhancement of Rs. 15,000/- towards disability and amenities as against Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, appellant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs. 48,000/- in addition to Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Only), with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.
The appellant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation, soon after deposit.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
