CHANDRAPPA K.N. Vs. C. NAGRAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 11.2.2010 passed in MVC No. 2423/2009 on the file of the XI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (S.C.C.H.12) at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal' for short).

(2.) By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,72,000/ - with interest at 6% 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 48 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy prior to the accident and was working as Senior Veterinary Inspector and drawing a salary of Rs. 16,000/ - per month. On 13.03.2009 at about 4.30 p.m near Setharamabattarapalya Bridge on NH -48, Kunigal Nelamangala Road, the appellant in MVC. No. 2423/2009 was driving the car bearing No. KA.05.Z.143 from Gundegere towards Nelamangala. At that time a lorry bearing No. OP.05.A.4416 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his head, both eyes, fracture of rib, fracture right tibia, fracture right zygoma, fracture right zeugmatic arch, type II DM and other part of the body. He was shifted to Abhaya Hospital at Bangalore. PW3 -Doctor Jyoti Matalia who is a Consultant Ophthalmologist at Narayana Nethralaya, has opined that based on nature and duration of treatment, visual fields tests result, clinical examination, the appellant will (a) never be able to see the right side of his visual, (b) normally in presence of right hemianopia the movement of eyes in the right field can aid in visualization. But as he will not be able to move the right eye in all fields like the left eye even after squint surgery, this can be of a major handicap. She has stated that the appellant falls in the category of low vision and hence assessed 40% visual disability. PW -4 Dr. Sharan Srinivasan who is a Consultant Neurosurgeon at Abhaya Hospital has stated that he has made detailed neuro psychological assessment and has stated that appellant has a whole body disability at 53.52%. It is the case of the appellant that, he has spent huge amount for treatment, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, he filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of MVC Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. To substantiate his case, he examined himself as PW1, Smt. Chandrakala. C as PW2, Dr. Jyoti Matalia as PW3, Dr. Sharan Srinivasan as PW4 and Dr. Ramasubba Reddy as PW5 and got marked documents as Exs. P1 to P50. Respondents have got marked Ex. R1. The Tribunal 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. 2,72,000/ - as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in so far as it relates to loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, disability on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and future medical expenses, and pain and sufferings, appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.