SANTHOSH KUMAR S. Vs. SHASHIKUMAR H.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.01.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and V MACT (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) at Davanagere in MVC No.428/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., when claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-17-EA-7432 from Davanagere to Hosanayakanahalli, on the left side of Hadadi Road, near Shivakumaraswamy Badavane, at that time, the rider of another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-17-EE-8249 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant's motor cycle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. After first aid treatment, he was shifted to SNR Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 17.02.2014 to 25.02.2014 and underwent surgery to his right leg. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT, Davanagere in MVC No.428/2014. In order to prove his case, he examined himself as PW.1 and examined Dr. Mallikarjuna Reddy as PW.2 and got marked 45 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.45. On the other hand, respondent-Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses but got marked one document as Ex.R.1. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Sri. Rudrappa .P, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the time of the accident, claimant was aged about 26 years and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month.