Shivaramu vs Kodigowda

The appellants in these two appeals are the claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment dated 9.7.2015 made in MVC. Nos. 746/2013 and 747/2013 passed by the MACT, Sriringapatna (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'' for short), filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has been challenged in these appeals and hence, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

The appellants in these appeals filed claim petitions contending that on 25.5.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., while they were returning home, on the left side of the road near Maralagaladoddi on Srirangapatna-Bannur Main Road, a Hero-Honda motorcycle bearing Regn.No. KA-55-J-2663 ridden by the rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimants from behind, as a result of which, they sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, they were taken to Government General Hospital, Srirangapatna and there after the claimant in MVC. No. 746/2013 was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore, where he was inpatient from 26,5.2013 to 4.6.2013, whereas the claimant in MVC. No. 747/2013 was shifted to Prajwal Nursing Home, Mysore wherein he has taken treatment from 26.5.2013 to 4.6.2013. They filed claim petitions contending that due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle accident has occurred and in view of the injuries sustained by them they suffered permanent disability inasmuch as they cannot do any work as they were doing prior to the accident. They sought for compensation of Rs. 8,40,000/-each.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the first respondent-owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent and as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force and hence the insurer is liable to compensate the claimants. The second respondent-insurance Company entered appearance and filed written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petitions. It also contended that rider of the offending motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident; the compensation claimed is exorbitant. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

The claimants got themselves examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and the doctor who has treated them was examined as PW.3 and they got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the second respondent-insurance Company, none of the witnesses were examined and no document has been marked.

The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the IMV report, spot mahazar, copies of the complaint and charge sheet, has held that due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider the accident has occurred and the claimants are entitled to compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant in MVC. No. 746/2013, has sustained the following injuries:-

i) abrasion over the left zygomatic arch;

ii) lateral side of the left orbit;

iii) abrasion over the left knee joint;

iv) lacerating wound over the lower scapula; and

v) tenderness over the left shoulder.

The X-ray report shows that there is fracture of zygomatic arch and humorous head of the left shoulder.

In so far as the claimant in MVC. No. 747/2013 is concerned, he has sustained the following injuries:-

i) fracture of lateral condyle right tibia

ii) abrasion all over the face;

iii) injury to the left shoulder; and

iv) multiple abrasion over the left hand

The X-ray report showed that there is fracture of right tibia.

The claimants have taken treatment for a period of nine days as inpatients. The Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimants and sufferings undergone by them as also the expenditure incurred by them, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,410/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the claimant in MVC. No. 746/2013, whereas Rs. 1,58,210/'' -with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimant in MVC. No. 747/2013. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred these appeals.

I have carefully heard the arguments addressed by Sri Sreerivasan M.Y., learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

The records reveal that the claimants sustained injuries due to rash and negligent riding on the part of rider of the motorcycle. Immediately after the accident, the claimants have taken treatment in the Government Hospital. They are Agriculturists by profession. The Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimants and the sufferings undergone by them and also considering the loss of earning capacity, has awarded just and fair compensation. The accident has occurred in the year 2013. The claimant in MVC. No. 746/2013 was aged about 50 years, whereas the claimant in MVC. No. 747/2013 was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. In the accident, claimant in MVC. No. 746/2013 sustained fracture of zygomatic arch, humorous head of the left shoulder. However, other injuries are simple in nature. Whereas claimant in MVC. No. 747/2013 sustained fracture of right tibia and other injuries are simple in nature. The Tribunal after taking the income of the claimants as Rs. 6,000/- per month, applying the appropriate multiplier, taking into consideration the disability as assessed by the doctor, has awarded just and fair compensation. I find no infirmity and irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The appellants have not made out any grounds for interference with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and hence, there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation.

Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.