UMESH NAIKA S/O NARAYANA NAIKA Vs. VUSMAN S/O MOHAMMED, RAMA NAIKA S/O NARAYANA NAIKA, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND MOHAMMED SHARIFF S/O SHEIKH AHMED SHAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in MVC No 1679/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), MACT, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal for brevity) for enhancement of compensation. The Claims Tribunal by its judgement and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 29,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. under different heads as against the claim of Rs. 3,32,000/ - against respondents. Being aggrieved, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and he is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) THE appellant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 3,32,000/ -, an account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 29.5.2001 at about 12.00 noon. Due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimant has sustained tenderness over the right eliac foes pain, pain all over the abdomen and lacerated wound on the anterior aspect of right tibia. He has undergone treatment and spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The said claim petition had come up before the Claims Tribunal for consideration on 29.11.2004. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 29,000/ - that too fixing liability against 4th respondent, the owner of the vehicle and rejecting to fix liability against the insurer.

(3.) AS against this learned Counsel for the second respondent - Insurance Company, inter alia, contends that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable. The Claims Tribunal, after due consideration of the material on record and taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, has awarded reasonable compensation and therefore interference by this Court is not called far.