M. MANJUNATH BILLAVA S/O. GOVINDA BILLAVA Vs. MR. S.S. HANKARAIAH SANTHOSE INDUSTRIES (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 6.1.2009 passed in MVC. No. 8777/2007 by the XVIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT -4, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident.

(2.) THE facts in brief are: The Appellant -Claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. . 10,00,000/ - against the Respondents on account of the bodily injuries which he sustained in a motor accident that took place on 16.11.2007 at about 2.45 p.m. in front of Karvi Consultancy situated in Basavangudi, Bangalore, involving the Tata Sumo bearing Regn. No. KA -04 -N/5797 driven by the first Respondent owned by the second Respondent and insured with the third Respondent at the relevant point of time. In the impugned accident he sustained severe injuries for which he took treatment in the hospital and underwent one surgery. He spent huge money for the treatment. Despite the same, he is unable to carry on his hotel business effectively which has resulted in loss of income. Hence, he prayed for grant of compensation. After institution of the petition, the petition as against Respondent No. 1 -driver came to be dismissed as deleted. Respondents 2 and 3 -owner and insurer appeared and contested the claim made by the Petitioner. The Respondents contended that the accident in question has not taken place due to the fault of the driver of the offending car, on the other hand, it took place on account of the fault, of the rider of the motor cycle in which the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider. They further denied the age, occupation, income, injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for the same. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition as against them. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal in all framed three issues. The claimant in support of his case got himself examined as PW1 and examined three more witnesses as PWs 2 to 4, among whom PW4 is the medical officer who treated him. He produced 25 documents. On behalf of the Respondents they did not choose to lead any oral evidence nor produced any documents. The tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident has taken place solely on account of the fault of the driver of the offending car and as such the claimant has established actionable negligence. Further, the tribunal looking to the evidence of the claimant and his two workers PWs 2 and 3 and the medical officer - PW4 coupled with the medical documents Ex.P6 -wound certificate Ex.P8 discharge summary, awarded a total compensation of Rs. . 1,13,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation under various heads. It further saddled the payment of compensation on the second Respondent -insurer. The Appellant -claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation is in appeal before this Court.

(3.) PER contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting -insurer supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.