K. Govindarajulu
1. Though this matter had come up for admission, with the consent of both parties, is taken for consideration on merits.
2. The claimant in MVC No. 2875/2008 on the file of IX Additional Judge Court of Small Causes, Member MACT-7, Bangalore, is the appellant in this appeal.
3. The cam of the claimant is, that on 25.02.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. white he was moving near Government Soap Factory Circle, Subramanyanagar, Bangalore, the driver of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA 43 E-4032, has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the claimant, it resulted in Injuries to the claimant For the pain and agony suffered by the claimant, seeks for compensation.
4. The Insurance Company filed objections denying the accident, call upon the claimant to prove the accident, impact, contend that the claim is exaggerated. Further, contend that the liability is strictly in accordance with the policy. So, plead for dismissal of the claim application.
5. After framing of the issues, PWs.1 fit 2 are examined. Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. The learned member of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,100/- with interest at 6% p.a.
6. The teemed advocate for the claimant submits that the doctor has certified disability at 15%. The claimant was art electrician, a skilled worker. So, assessment on the disability and earning by the Tribunal required Interference so also contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is also km. So, pray for enhancing the compensation
7. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the Insurance Company supports the method adopted by the Tribunal. Contend that since no satisfactory evidence on the disability and the income fit produced, the approach of the Tribunal is proper. So, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions. The accident is admitted and the actionable negligence is not disputed.
9. The material facts placed before the court would probabilise that the claimant has contended that he has sustained 15% disability and he is not in a position to do the job of electrician as he was doing earlier. To support his version, PW2 is examined. In the cross-examination, PW2 admits that he is not a neuro surgaon and he hat not treated the claimant Taking this aspect into consideration, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 3% to the whole body. The claimant has sustained fracture of right parietal bone. So, the disability is attested at 8%. Being a skilled worker, the income is attested at Rs.4,000/- p.m. The age of the claimant being 33 years, the multiplier applicable is ''16''. So, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity, requires interference and it works out to Rs.61.440/- (8% of Rs.4,000/- = 320 x 12 - 3840 x 16 = RS. 61,440 rounded to Rs.62,000/-). So, Rs.62,000/-is awarded. Under the pain and suffering, a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded, towards loss of income during laid up period, a further sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded.
10. In all, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 38,400/- (62,000 - 30,600 = 31,400 (loss of earning capacity) + 5000 4 + 2000) it shell curry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till deposit, The compensation awarded under other heads are not altered.
Accordingly, The appeal is allowed in part.
