N.K. Patil, J.@mdashThis appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24/04/2013 passed in MVC No. 168/2011, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar and C/c. Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short) for enhancement, on the ground that, Rs. 1,42,080/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The appellant claims to be aged about 35 years and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He met with an accident that occurred on 29.4.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was proceeding in front of Talaguppa Police Station on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyoto Innova car bearing Reg. No. KA.02.M.C.4400 and sustained grievous injuries to his leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sagar, after first aid, he was shifted to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga and then to VENLOCK hospital Mangalore. He took treatment as inpatient for 21 days in different hospitals, undergone surgery and implants were inserted and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow-up treatment.
2. It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. Due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 19% to right lower limb. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of MV Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.
3. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 1,42,080/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 9% p.a., (excluding the amount awarded towards future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of 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. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal after considering the material available on record, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken, the percentage of disability suffered by him and taking into consideration his age and occupation, has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental charges, Rs. 16,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenity, Rs. 46,080/- towards loss of future income by assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- per month, taking the disability at 6% as the Doctor has assessed the disability at 19% to the right lower limb and adopting the Multiplier ''16'' taking his age as 35 years and Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses, and in all, Rs. 1,42,080/- with interest at 6% p.a., (excluding interest on future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of realization. The said reasoning assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant is just and reasonable and therefore, it does not call for interference. Nor I find any good grounds or justification as such made out by the appellant to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the" appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.
