LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-24

M.S. LOKESH Vs. ACHAPPA AND ORS.

Decided On April 11, 2016
M.S. Lokesh Appellant
V/S
Achappa And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated: 5th September, 2014, passed in MVC No. 667/2007, by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 7, Bangalore, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 11,77,000/ -, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 30,00,000/ -, is inadequate.

(2.) The appellant claims to be aged about 36 years, a home maker and also a forward agriculturist, owning 35 acres of land, growing commercial crops and earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 10:00 A.M., on 26 -06 -2006, when the appellant was standing with his scooter bearing Registration No. KA -01/H -3944, on NH -7 road side near Huvina Muniyappa's land, where his land is situated abutting to it, at that time, a Tempo bearing Registration No. KA -40/A -81 being driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. Due to the impact, the appellant was thrown at a distance and he suffered severe injuries like fracture mid shaft of left humerus, comminuted fractures of upper end of radius and ulna with loss of bone, fracture of right pubic bone and left iliac bone, fracture of left side ribs, diffuse brain injury with tentorial haematoma, contusion over liver, abrasions over forehead, nose and left foot and swelling over left elbow and on other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Chikkaballapur for immediate treatment then to Mallya Hospital and admitted from 26 -06 -2006 to 05 -08 -2006 and then to Sarvodaya Hospital, Magadi Road, where he was admitted from 06 -08 -2006 to 25 -12 -2006 and still under extra medical care and attendants.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.