P VITTAL BHANDARY Vs. SATHISH NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Mohan Reddy, J. The appellant is the claimant-injured in M. V. C. No. 93 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal at Puttur, D. K. (for short 'the M. A. C. T. ') filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' ). In the claim petition, the appellant had claimed a total compensation of rs. 15,00,000 from the respondents for personal injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 8. 3. 1996 involving the motor vehicle owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 3. M. A. C. T. awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,75,000 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment/deposit. The appellant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, has preferred this appeal under section 173 (1) of the Act.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: the appellant it is said was a businessman running a grocery shop at Marasanige village in Mudigere taluk of Chikmagalur district. On 8. 3. 1996 when the injured along with one D. E. Ramappa and others were travelling in the motor vehicle being a jeep bearing registration No. KA 21-M 556 belonging to the respondent No. 1, was driven by the respondent No. 3 driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the driver lost control and the jeep went off the road and fell into a roadside ditch near Chappala Masjid of Savanur village at about 8 p. m. Due to the accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries and lost consciousness. He was shifted to the Primary Health Centre at puttur and due to his critical condition, he was shifted to City Hospital, Mangalore, for treatment on the same day. Despite the best efforts and treatment, it is claimed that the injured lost his memory, suffered permanent disability both mental and physical and is not in a position to attend to his day-to-day activities without the assistance of an attendant. Due to the injuries, the appellant is unable to carry on his business. It is also claimed that the appellant was taken to nimhans at Bangalore for consultation. The appellant not in a position to move about and mentally not stable has filed the petition represented by his wife and next friend Geeta P. Vittal Bhandary, claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000. The respondent No. 1 entered appearance, but did not choose to file written statement. The respondent No. 2 insurer, filed the written statement denying all material allegation except the accident. The respondent No. 3 did not put in appearance in the proceedings. The M. A. C. T. on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues both on the question of negligence as well as quantum of compensation.

(3.) THE wife of the appellant examined herself as PW 1 since the appellant being incapacitated is unable to appear before the court and tender his evidence. The appellant also examined two other witnesses one D. E. Ramappa as PW and Anil as PW 3. The appellant produced 135 documents which were marked as Exhs. P-l to P-135. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence, but produced a copy of insurance policy which was marked as Exh. R-1.