NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VENKATEHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company with which the Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing Registration No.KA-03/K-3965 which was involved in the accident that occurred on 23.04.2003 at about 6.30p.m in front of RTO Office at Kolar within the limits of Kolar Town was insured. THE appellant - insurer has challenged in this appeal the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 27.10.2007 passed in MVC No.207/2003 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Member, Additional MACT, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Tribunal" for short) insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant in the said case who is respondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) THE first respondent - claimant has filed his Cross Objection No.238/2008 in this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in his favour by the Claims Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and Award.

(3.) PER contra Sri. C.N. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the cross objector - claimant strongly contends as under: (i) Though the physical disability of the claimant in respect of his left lower limb is 50%, the Claims Tribunal, having regard to the fact that the claimant was doing grazing of ducks and sales in ducks ought to have taken functional/economic disability of the claimant at the minimum of 80% because, as a result of the said disability, earning capacity of the claimant has been reduced to that extent. (ii) Despite there being evidence of the injured claimant that he was earning an income of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month by grazing and selling of ducks, the Claims Tribunal committed serious error in taking said income at Rs.2,100/- per month (Rs.70/- per day) and therefore while contending so he further submits that Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the claimant at least at Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month while determining the 'loss of income during the period of treatment and rest' and also 'loss of future income' or 'reduction in earning capacity of the claimant'. (iii) In view of the established fact that the claimant was treated as inpatient for 88 days and underwent two operations, the amounts awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head 'pain and sufferings', 'attendant charges', 'food and nutrition' are all not adequate and therefore, the said amount deserves to be enhanced. (iv) In view of the fact that the injured claimant was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident, Claims Tribunal was not justifed in awarding only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards 'loss of amenities and enjoyment in the future life' of the claimant which may not be less than about 20 years and therefore the said amount also requires to be enhanced.