Suman vs Bhan Appaji Ramankatti on 28 January, 2010

which__ ‘vehicle”«..meti’ s.wi_t.h an accident, on account of the rash and

iv.2f”~n*egligent-ririvgingi driver near Stavanidhi Ghat. Immediately

‘ ” accident she was taken to Nipani Government Hospital and

Miraj Hospital. The claimant had sustained fracture of

bone and also fracture of 2 to 6 left side ribs. She was in

{V

hospital for eight days. She was treated as an inpatient at Miraj. In
order to prove the contention that she has suffered permanent

disability she relied upon her own evidence as P.W.l and”

Ex.P.68 she also relied upon the evidence of the

Padmaraj Chandrakant Patil, who treatr.v3diihe’i*.._

deposed that she has. suffered disability far 120%.

Tribunal has considered the disabilityitosithe The
Tribunal considering the inconie««of 2ii,i100/~ pm.
deducting l/3rd towards her a sum of
Rs.21,800/- towardgb. 15,058/- towards
medical the attendant’ and diet charges,
Rs. 1,000/’ _t%ward–s.Vcofllli¢3f in all a sum of Rs. 39,85 8/–~ has
Being in’otv—-s–atisfied with the judgment and award the

pres’ent”‘appe.al’*is’ filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

‘V Wei.iiha.V”e.aheard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is

dispiite that the appellant has suffered fracture of clavical bone

i’.fg’and’.also fracture to her left side 2 to 6 ribs. The disability is also not

fir’

5}

in dispute in view of the clinching evidence of P.W.2. According to

the claimant she was doing bangle business and

pm. but no positive evidence was let in to show that she_iwasV.earnting_ V’

Rs. 5,000/- pm. In the circumstances the’i’ili’irib’L’tn_ai«.coul–d_”h–ave”talgen

the income as Rs. 3,000/- pm. even she is -r.;oi–1.sidere,d1,asi “a icoo1ie=or’= -‘

housewife. Therefore we are of iiitl1e.i”opinio1i.i_ awarding a
compensation considering _p2,l(i)i(i}i/–“i pm. and
deducting 1/3” of her in case of
personal injury is the judgment and

award of the Tribunal’1’et;;uiresto interfered with.

3. We have also noticed”that.. compensation is awarded under

the head pgain _andis’ufferiing and loss of amenities in life. In the

ci’rCuni1sta:iices_ileparried counsel for the parties requested the Court to

reconsiderprtthe’ ien_ti’re”i evidence and assess just and reasonable

’77rcompensatiion.” Therefore what is required to be considered by us in

,: iappiieal’ is: H g.

What would be the just and reasonable compensation payable to
the appellant-claimant?

4. Since the disability is not in dispute and as the Tritqttha1″iihpt

awarded any compensation under the head pain C’

considering that she was taken to Mira} from

to award Rs. 30,000/~ towards pain.an_d suiffeiring. the?’

nature of fracture we are also inclined Its; under the
head loss of amenities in life.;”«-._iWeA oi” 25,000/~
towards nourishment,4attendant” charges. In
addition to that o’fitheiciliaimant at Rs. 3,000/-
pm. and if the the whole body, future loss of
income would Rs. 3,600/- p.a. Considering the
Hor1’blie Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)

andiiothers’ s;»,:Deilh.i.vifransport Corporation and another reported in

v.i:iii””(2009) Court Cases 121, we have to apply the multiplier of
i ii. the ag__r,e’»«of the claimant on the date of accident was 45. if we
multiplier of 14, future loss of income would be Rs.50,400/–

s it a . p C “thesis all the claimant is entitled for Rs. 1,25,400/-.

6*? ,-‘

*3 z/’

bvv

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Compensation

awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No. 1124/01 is enhanced-_from

Rs.39,858/~ to Rs. 1,25,400/- with interest at 6% pa.

petition till payment. Out of the enhanced compensation. _ofithe..

same with proportionate interest accrued tl3ere:onp.Sha–ll ‘deposi_ted: in

the name of appellant for a periodi*of._f1velyears. V Eésviehntitleditoiliii

draw periodical interest. Rest of the-amo_nnt iheigleased to the

claimant.