LAWS(KAR)-2011-11-336

Y KOTRAPPA. S/O NANJAPPA Vs. SRI CHIDANANDA, S/O SHIVABASAPPA @ RANGAPPA

Decided On November 09, 2011
Y Kotrappa. S/O Nanjappa Appellant
V/S
Sri Chidananda, S/O Shivabasappa @ Rangappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30 -10 -2006 passed in MVC 1135/2005 on the file of Addl. Motor Accident. Claims Tribunal - cum Fast. Track Court -II Davanagerc The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 72,700/ - under various heads with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a. road traffic accident. Claiming that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and seeking enhancement, this appeal is filed.

(2.) THE appellant claimed that he was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business, On 02.05.2004 at 2.00 p.m. he was travelling in a Maxi Cab from Hamsagar to Hadagali. The driver of Maxi Cab drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and made it to topple. Due 10 the impact the appellant suffered fracture of left clavicle bone and left humerus bone and undergone treatment for one and half months and spent considerable amount towards treatment, travelling, etc. Due to the injuries sustained, he is unable to do the work normally. Taking into consideration all these factors the appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,25,000/ -. The said matter came up for consideration and the tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration the avocation of the appellant, has awarded compensation of Rs.72,700/ -. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded the appellant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award, what emerges is that, the Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded Rs.30,000/ - towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,765/ - towards medical expenses. They do not call for interference. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of income during treatment period and loss of amenities and happiness.