HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.365
OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The injured-claimant in O.P.No.505 of 1994 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), against two respondents(Owner and
Insurer of the crime vehicle Fiat car bearing No.AP11-9466) for the claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
for the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 28.05.1993 by dashing the
crime vehicle against a tree due to rash and negligent driving of its driver
and the tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- with interest at 9%p.a. by its award dated
24.11.2003, preferred this appeal impugning the said award with the contentions
that the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal is unjust and utterly
low, that the tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant sustained grievous
multiple injuries and he was shifted to Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore and taken
treatment as inpatient which caused him to incur lot of expenditure and the
tribunal should have seen that due to accident academic career of the claimant
was badly damaged, hence to set aside the award of the tribunal and allow the
appeal by granting compensation as prayed for. The learned counsel for the claimant
reiterated said contentions during course of hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent-insurer (for the 1st respondent
remained exparte before the tribunal and not chosen to appear herein) that the
award of the tribunal holds good and there is nothing to interfere with it for
this Court while sitting in appeal, hence to dismiss the appeal.
3. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
4. Now the
points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1.
Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is utterly low
and unjust and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal to
enhance, if so, with what compensation and with what observations?
2.
To
what result?
Point
No.1:
5. There is no dispute
about the manner of the accident but for the quantum. The injuries sustained by
the injured as per Ex.A.3 wound certificate issued by the Manipal Hospital,
Bangalore, with reference to Ex.A.4 discharge summary shows he sustained
fracture of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal of
the left limb and Ex.A.2 bunch of medical bills shows an amount of Rs.20,000/-
incurred by the injured-claimant-P.W.1 towards medical expenditure. The tribunal in all awarded of Rs.60,000/-. Per each metatarsal even taken Rs.10,000/- for 4 metatarsals
of Rs.40,000/-; towards medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-, towards loss of
earnings even for two months of Rs.7,000/- and towards transport, attendant charges and extra
nourishment even of Rs.9,000/- taken in all it comes to Rs.76,000/- for which
the injured-claimant is entitled and the compensation of Rs.60,000/- granted by
the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.76,000/-. With regard to the rate of interest,
the rate of interest granted by the tribunal is 9%p.a. which is excessive and
the same is reduced to 7.5% p.a.as per the Apex Court’s latest (Three Judges Bench) expression in Rajesh
v. Rajbir Singh[1]. Accordingly,
point No.1 is answered.
Point
No.2:
6. In the result, appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.76,000/- (Rupees seventy six thousands only)
with interest at 7½%p.a from the date of claim petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Both the respondents
are directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today,
failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery,
the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs
in the appeal. Miscellaneous petitions,
if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date:
27-12-2014
Vvr
