SHAKTHI Vs. BALASUBRAMANYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/claimant is aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the 6th Addl. Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-2) (for short, 'Tribunal ') in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 24-09-2010 at 7.30 a.m.

(2.) The claimant filed a claim petition under Sec. 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal, contending that on 24-09-2010 at 7.30 a.m. while he was standing on the side of Whitefield Main Road, near Manasa Driving School, a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-02/A-5688 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him, resultantly, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, for first aid treatment, thereafter, to Nimhans Hospital. From there, he was treated as inpatient at a private Hospital, Tamil Nadu. From the date of accident, intermittently he was inpatient for a period of seven months. He was hale and healthy, working as a mason and earning a sum of Rs. 7,500.00 per month. Subsequent to the accident, he is incapacitated to earn and carry on his routine life. Criminal case is registered against the driver of the lorry. He has sustained fractures to the posterior/postero-Axillary shafts of left sided 8th, 9th and 10th ribs, displaced with left sided Haemo-Pneumothorax, fatty infiltration of the liver, posterior abdominal wall haematoma, renal vascular pedicular injury, spine injury etc. The case was contested by the owner of the lorry. The Tribunal on overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed by the both parties, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding a compensation of Rs. 6,64,700.00 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(3.) Sri. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that while capitalizing the compensation, the Tribunal lost sight of nature of injuries suffered by him and its consequences and repercussion, his monthly income for the purpose of assessing loss of income during treatment period and loss of earning capacity was taken only at Rs. 4,500.00 per month though his income was more than Rs. 10,000.00 per month from his masonry work. In view of the injuries, he could not lead normal life as before. No amount is awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of marital prospects. Even now, he is suffering from various problems, in view of the injuries sustained during the accident. The doctor who examined his as testified before the Court that, he has suffered 62.50% of disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has considered only 30% which is substantially lessened to the compensation. Hence, the judgment and award of the tribunal may be modified by awarding just and reasonable compensation.