S.Y. KRISHNA IYENGAR Vs. ASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained in the accident has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement. The facts reveal that on 20.06.2008 at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was riding Hero Puch bearing reg. No. KA 09 -V -617 with a pillion rider. At the cross in the circle near Raghavendra Mutt, Jayalaxmipuram, Mysore, a Maruti Alto car bearing Reg. No. KA 12 -N -3248 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from the other side and hit the Hero Puch. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to the hospital. He suffered permanent disability. He was working in a call centre. In the circumstances, he claimed compensation on different grounds.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) EX .P7 is the hand -sketch of the place of occurrence of the accident. The accident occurred at the circle. The car was coming from the western side towards eastern side, whereas the appellant was riding his motor cycle from the northern side towards, the south. It is at this juncture the accident occurred at the circle. Though the driver of the car pleaded guilty before the Magistrate and did not enter the witness box, it is the evidence of P.W.1 which has to be considered in the context of the FIR and other documents produced. Under the regulations when a person is riding a vehicle and proceeding towards the circle, first he must give way to the vehicles, which are coming on his right side. Admittedly, the car of the respondent was coming from the western direction towards east, to mean on the right side of the vehicle of the appellant. It was the duty of the appellant to wait for till the car passes and then to proceed in the circle. So, the contents of Exs.P7 give a clear reflect as to how the accident could have occurred. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding contribution of 30% of the negligence by the appellant in the occurrence of the accident while riding his motor cycle. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the appellant has suffered comminuted fracture of both tibia and fibula middle 1/3rd of the right leg. The Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 30,000 -00 for pain and sufferings and mental agony. Both the bones of the right leg suffered fracture. I think the interest of justice would be met if an additional sum of Rs. 5,000 -00 is awarded on this head. The compensation awarded for medical treatment and other ancillary charges at Rs. 16,000 -00 is just and proper. The appellant was working in call centre. He has produced certain documents including his salary statement -Ex.P12 and the Tribunal has considered his income at Rs. 5,000 -00. It is relevant to note that in case if a person sustained fracture of both the bones of the leg, it is rather difficult for him to assume the normal duties at least for a period of 3 months. Hence, he is entitled to Rs. 15,000 -00 on this head. To mean, an additional sum of Rs. 12,323 -00. There were implants fixed at the time of the surgery and they were to be removed. The Tribunal has granted meager amount of Rs. 2,000 -00 towards the future medical expenses. The surgery may reasonably require an amount of Rs. 10,000 -00. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 8,000 -00 on the said head. Though the appellant examined the doctor as P.W.2, who stated about the disability at 36% to the lower limb adopting the general rule, the disability of the whole body is 12%. But, anyhow, the appellant has continued in service and no material is placed on record having discontinued the service due to his disability. Therefore, he cannot claim any compensation for loss of future income. The appellant has to suffer the disability all along the life and therefore, I think it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 30,000 -00 towards loss of amenities. If the appellant had proved the exclusive negligence on the part of the driver of the car he could have been entitled to total compensation of Rs. 55,323 -00 and as he has contributed 30% of the negligence in the occurrence of the accident, 30% of the compensation enhanced has to be deducted, thereby the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 38,726 -00 apart from the compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, I answer point No. 1 in negative, point No. 2 in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: