MUNIKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 1.9.2009 passed in MVC No.286/2005 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court I, Kolar, challenging the liability and also the quantum of compensation, since the Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner respondent No.1.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that: On 2.3.2005 at about 1.30 p.m., the petitioner/ appellant was traveling in a Tempo bearing Registration No.KA-04/B-622 owned by respondent No.1 with his mother as coolies for loading and unloading carrot bags and the driver of the Tempo drove in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the Tempo was turtled. The claimant and other persons who were traveling in the said Tempo sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to SNR Hospital, Kolar, where he was inpatient for about two months, spent Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant has become physically handicapped due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident and hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. In pursuance of the notice issued to respondent Nos.1 & 2, both of them appeared and filed their written statement through their respective counsels. The first respondent denied the averments made in the claim petition. However, contended that the vehicle is insured with the second respondent, if there is any liability, the same has to be fastened on the second respondent insurance company. The second respondent insurance company in the written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claimant was traveling in the Tempo as a passenger in the goods Carrier Tempo, so there is a breach of policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any sort of compensation. The claimant in order to substantiate the claim has examined the brother of the injured as PW-1 and also examined the doctor as PW-2. The claimant got marked the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-20. The respondents have not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.1,81,600/- with interest at 6% p.a., directing the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation and exonerated liability of the insurance company. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this court.

(3.) In the present appeal, the main contention of the claimant is that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering both oral and documentary available on record. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings and also erred in awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medicine and attendant charges, food and nourishment despite arriving at a finding that only medical bills for Rs.30,912/- has been produced. The Tribunal also committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head 'loss of future amenities' without appreciating the total disability at 80%, since he has suffered brain damage and has ignored the evidence of the doctor who has been examined as PW-2. The Tribunal has also committed an error in taking the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.80/- per day and also committed an error in taking the multiplier 16 instead of 18. The Tribunal also committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 6% p.a., and hence it requires interference by this court.