(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated:04.03.2013 passed in MVC No.1173/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-2, MACT, Hassan, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.)

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fast Track Court - II and MACT at Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, for short), by its judgment and award dated 04.03.2013 in MVC No.1173/2012.

Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

2. The appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by him, has prayed for allowing the appeal.

3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal.

5. The present appeal being the claimants appeal and the respondents having not preferred either cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re- analysed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. After analyzing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:

Amount (Rs.)

Towards pain and agony20,000.00

Towards medical expenses including nourishment and attendant charges25,000.00

Towards loss of income during treatment / rest10,000.00

Towards loss of future income92,160.00

Towards future medical expenses10,000.00

Towards unhappiness05,000.00

Total1,62,160.00





7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant sustained three major fractures and four simple injuries in the accident and was inpatient in the hospital for 14 days and also was bed ridden for more than two months. The Tribunal has not considered these aspects, as such, has awarded a meager compensation. He further submitted that the income of the claimant which was Rs.20,000/- p.m. also was not properly considered by the Tribunal, as such, the notional income of Rs.6,000/- p.m. ought to have been taken by the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company in his argument submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal being reasonable, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

9. The wound certificate at EX.P5 and the evidence of PW.1, copies of which have been produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, go to show that in the accident in question the claimant sustained fracture of right femur and also fracture of right scapula and sacrum. He was inpatient in the hospital for 14 days from 07.04.2012 to 21.04.2012 as could be seen from the discharge summary at EX.P7. The say of the claimant that he was bed ridden for more than two months is also not specifically denied. Considering the nature of the injuries and the length of the treatment he has taken, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.15,000/-.

10. The compensation towards medical expenses and attendant charges and miscellaneous since based upon the actuals more particularly, on the basis of the medical prescriptions and bills at EX.P9 to EX.P11, I am of the view that the said quantum of Rs.25,000/- does not warrant any variation at the hands of this Court.

11. According to the claimant he was an agriculturist and also was doing business earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Finding that no corroborative evidence was placed by the claimant in support of his contention regarding his alleged income, the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. However, considering the notional income that was required to be taken for the relevant year of 2012, I am of the view that submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that income of the claimant was required to be taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m. is requires to be accepted. That being the case, the quantum of compensation towards loss of income during treatment period deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

12. PW.2 the doctor though has stated that the claimant had sustained physical disability of 35% to his right lower limb, but the said doctor has not given any opinion as to the percentage of alleged disability to the whole body of the claimant. Considering this aspect the Tribunal has confined the permanent partial physical disability of the claimant as applicable to the whole body at 12%, which I do not want to vary. In the light of the enhancement in the notional income aspect of the claimant, the compensation towards future loss of income of the claimant would come at 6,000 x 12 x 16 x 12/100 = Rs.1,38,240/-, after deducting a sum of Rs.92,160/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head, the claimant is entitled for the difference amount of Rs.46,080/-.

13. Towards the future medical expenses PW.2 the doctor has categorically stated in his evidence that the claimant may require a sum of Rs.25,000/-. However, attributing no reason the Tribunal has confined the same to Rs.10,000/-. Considering the nature of the injury sustained by him and implantation of foreign body in the fractured organ of the claimant, I am of the view that the compensation towards future medical expenses deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Similarly the compensation towards loss of amenities in the circumstances of the case also requires to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

14. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads.

15. Thus, in total the claimant/appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.81,080/-, which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court - II and MACT at Hassan in MVC No.1173/2012 dated 04.03.2013 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at Rs.1,62,160/- is enhanced by a sum of Rs.81,080/-, thus fixing the total compensation at Rs.2,43,240/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty-three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only).

The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and the terms regarding deposit of the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.

Draw modified award accordingly.