Kumar V. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 05/12/2014, passed in MVC No. 1115/2012, by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 27,301/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 28 years as on the date of the accident and hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 28.1.2012 at ab out 12.30 p.m. appellant was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA.02.EJ.4250 from Nelamangala side towards Kunigal side on Bangalore-Kunigal NH 48 road, at that time, the driver of one Innova Car bearing Reg. No. KA.04.MC.9818 came from the same direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit to his motor cycle from its behind. Due to which, appellant fell down and sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala, after first aid, he was shifted to ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient for 04 days and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the appellant that, he has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. Therefore, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 27,301/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit directing the respondent No. 2, owner of the Innova car bearing Reg. No. KA.04.MC.9818 to deposit the said amount and dismissed the petition against respondent No. 1-Insurer of the offending vehicle. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on the respondent No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle, the appellant has presented this appeal for modification of the same.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. P. Shivakumar, appearing for the appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the respondent No. 2, owner of the Innova car and in dismissing the petition against the respondent No. 2-Insurer and the same is liable to be modified by fixing liability on respondent No. 1-Insurer of the offending vehicle on the ground that, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in paras 17 to 21 is contrary to the evidence on record. Further, he submitted that, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced as the Tribunal has failed to consider Ex. P5-Wound certificate which shows that injury No. 7 is grievous in nature and for that appellant has taken treatment for four days in the hospital. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that, he is aged about 28 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and in the said accident, he has sustained injuries, viz., abrasion over forehead (right side), abrasion on joint below right lower lid, abrasion over nose, abrasion over central part of forehead, abrasion over left leg, abrasion over right knee, abrasion over left thumb, diffuse swelling over right ankle region, abrasion over right forearm and swelling of right eyelid and as per Ex. P5-wound certificate, injury No. 7 is grievous in nature and injury Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 are simple in nature and for that, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 4 days in Harsha Hospital and spent amount towards medicines and other connected expenses. It is the further case of the appellant that, he was getting more than Rs. 10,000/- per month as he is working as Field Assistant at Karle International Company.

The Tribunal, after elaborately discussing the evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with the evidence of RWs- 1 and 2 and Exs. P1 to P29 and Exs. D1 to 5, has recorded the finding of fact holding that as per the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs. P1 to 6, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Innova car bearing Reg. No. KA.04.MC.9818 and answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. Further, the Tribunal while answering Issue No. 2 has observed that, RW2-Assistant Regional Transport Officer has deposed that, as per Ex. R5-Driving Licence pertaining to one A. Channegowda, he has possessed driving licence to drive the LMV tractor and the said driving licence is valid upto 31.12.2015 and except Tractor, he cannot drive any LMV vehicle without proper driving licence and held that, the driver had possessed the driving licence only to drive LMV Tractor and not any other vehicle and it reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the Innova car bearing Reg. No. KA.04.MC.9818 as on the date of the accident and therefore, the owner of the vehicle has committed breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence, respondent No. 1 is not liable to indemnify the insured and the respondent No. 2 being the RC. Owner of the Innova car bearing Reg. No. KA.04.MC.9818 is liable to pay the compensation and accordingly answered the said issue in the affirmative. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal for fastening liability on the respondent No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P5-wound certificate and after elaborately discussing the same in Paras-22 to 26 of its judgment, has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 301/- towards medical expenses as per Exs. P10 and P11, Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and in all, Rs. 27,301/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization and the same as just and reasonable and interference by this Court is not called for, nor I find any substance in the contention taken by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal to entertain the relief sought in this appeal

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.