HARSHA S R Vs. VINAY C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is posted in the orders list, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.12.2013 passed in MVC No.664/2012 on the file of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, and MACT, Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

(2.) BY its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,13,300/ - with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellant that, he was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy prior to the accident and due to untimely death of his father he discontinued his B.E. degree course and carried on the agricultural activities including sericulture and horticulture and started to look after the family. When things stood thus, on 13.11.2011 at about 6.15 a.m., he met with an accident when he was proceeding in a Car bearing Regn. No.KA -03/MG -4818, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. As a result of it, he was severely injured and his spinal chord crushed. Immediately, he was shifted to Vinayaka Nursing Home, Tumkur and later to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. He underwent surgery and discharged on 28.11.2011. Later, he was shifted to Siddaramanna Hospital, Tumkur where he underwent physiotherapy. He lost conscious of his lower half of the body. He also took treatment at Vellore, Tamilnadu. Totally, he was treated as inpatient in the hospital for more than 109 days. PW2 -Doctor, after clinical and medical examination, has assessed 100% permanent physical disability in respect of both legs. He spent huge amount towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and suffered mental pain and agony during treatment period and has to endure the discomfort and unhappiness through out his life. He has to depend on others to attend to his day -to -day work. Therefore, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MVC Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn, after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs.17,13,300/ - as compensation under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. Sri Shantharaj K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset fairly submits that, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of appellant at only Rs.4,500/ - per month, and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of appellant which is contrary to the evidence available on record. To substantiate his submission, he pointed out and submitted that, the appellant was prosecuting his studies, but due to untimely death of his father he discontinued his education and started to look after his family business such as agriculture, sericulture and horticulture. He was owning 16 acres of land along with other family members and was getting more than Rs.1,00,000/ - per month. Non production of documents does not take away the legitimate entitlement of compensation by the appellant. Therefore, he submits, by re -assessing the income of the appellant, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of future income. Further, he submits, the Tribunal has erred in not considering duration of treatment under gone by the appellant, since, the appellant was treated as inpatient in different hospitals for more than 109 days and also undergone one surgery. Further, he pointed out and submitted that, the appellant has suffered mental pain and agony during treatment and has to endure the said difficulty through out his life. He has to depend on others to meet his day -to -day necessities. To substantiate the said submission he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of SYED SADIQ AND OTHERS V. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2014 2 SCC 735.