K.N. Phaneendra, J.@mdashThe claimant in MVC No. 213/2006 is before this court challenging the award passed by the I-Additional MACT, Karwar, and seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company is represented by the learned counsel Sri. M.Y. Katagi.
3. On perusal of the order sheet it is noticed that, this case was referred to Lok-Adalat on several occasions. But, due to the absence of the counsel for the claimant, the case was referred back to the court. Before the court also the case was called on several occasions and the appellant''s counsel remained absent. Today also the appellant''s counsel has remained absent. The claim petition is of the year 2006 and the appeal before this Court is filed in the year 2010. Four years have already been elapsed before this Court. The counsel for the appellant/claimant is not appearing before the court whenever the case is posted and called. Therefore, no purpose would be served in waiting for the appearance of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
4. As this court has got the responsibility to deal with the matter, the court has to find-out whether the appellant is entitled for any enhancement in the compensation. It is incumbent upon the appellate court to see whether the just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the trial Court, in the absence of the Advocate and if really the claimant is entitled for enhancement of the amount awarded, he should not suffer injustice at the hands of the court. Therefore, I do not wish to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, instead, propose to dispose of the same on merits.
5. It is seen from the records that the claimant/appellant has met with an accident on 29.04.2006 at about 12.00 hours near Hattikeri of Ankola when he was about to alight the lorry bearing Registration No. KA.30/9009, which belonged to Respondent No. 1. When the claimant, who was working as a cleaner in the said lorry, was about to board the lorry, the driver of the said lorry has suddenly moved the vehicle and as a result of which the accident occurred and the claimant has suffered the following injury:--
"Left lower limb is internally rotated, shortening of left lower limb and head of femur fell in left region."
6. The claimant has approached the trial Court for grant of compensation and the trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 77,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, under several heads,.
7. The wound certificate marked at Ex. P2 discloses the above said injury. The complainant has also given evidence in support of the said claim and he was treated as inpatient in the hospital for about 24 days from 29.04.2006 to 23.05.2006. One Dr. Suresh Bhat, the Orthopedic Surgeon, was examined before the Tribunal as PW. 2 and he admitted that he has given a certificate as per Ex. P5 quantifying the permanent disability to the extent of 30%. Though it is the claim of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- p.m., the trial Court has taken his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-, as PW.1 was working as a Cleaner in the said lorry itself and as the accident has occurred in the year 2006. and on applying the multiplier of ''16'', it has held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 29,000/- towards loss of future income.
8. The trial Court has properly assessed the monthly income of the appellant/claimant and correctly applied the multiplier, but instead of taking 10% of the disability, it has taken the same 5% only. As per the doctor''s opinion, the claimant has suffered 30% disability to the particular limb, therefore, it should have taken same at 10%. If the disability is taken at 10%, the award under the head of Loss of future Income works-out to Rs. 72,000/- as against the amount of Rs. 29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled for another sum of Rs. 43,000/- under this head.
9. It is noticed from the record that the claimant had admitted in the hospital for about 24 days. No amount is awarded by the Tribunal under the head of conveyance and attendant charges. Therefore, The claimant is also entitled for Rs. 6,000/- towards ''Attendant Charges''.
10. The trial Court has also not awarded any amount under the loss of amenities. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under this head.
11. In view of the above discussions, the appellant/claimant is entitled for Rs. 69,000/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 70,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
12. In the result, the following order is passed:--
"i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. The appellant/claimant is entitled for Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, in addition to the amount of Rs. 77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
ii) It is noticed that the appeal is filed belatedly and this court has condoned the delay vide order dated 13.10.2014 specifically making it clear that the appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period i.e. for 382 days. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 70,000/- only for a period of five years.
iii) The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant/claimant."
