VIJAY S/O SIDDAPPA Vs. SRI P. JAGANNATH RAJU S/O GOPALA RAJU AND THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the appellant. He had filed MVC 5284/2002 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - V, Bangalore City, contending that, while he working as a loader and un -loader in Mini Lorry No. KA -04 -7918, on account of its rash and negligent driving by its driver, at 2:30 p.m. on 01.08.2001, he met with an accident and thereby sustained severe injuries. He was taken to the hospital, wherein he obtained treatment as an inpatient. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation from the respondents. The said petition was taken up for consideration along with MVC 5384/2002. The respondents being the owner and insurer of the said vehicle, filed separate written statements opposing the claim petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court raised the issues.

(2.) PETITIONER deposed as PW -1 and examined the doctor to prove the injuries sustained by him and the resultant effects thereof on him. Respondents did not lead any evidence. On consideration of the record and the rival contentions, the tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding compensation of Rs. 44,500/ - with Interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in the court. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner has preferred this appeal to modify the award and to allow the claim in full.

(3.) SRI K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the tribunal has failed to appreciate the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, as he had blunt injury over abdomen and underwent exploratory laparotamy and repair of lunar laceration, as well as operation for suturing blunt injury over the abdomen, which resulted in pain and sufferings, mental agony and shock and consequently the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is meager. He further contended that, the tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW -4 in the proper perspective. Learned Counsel pointed out that, PW -4 has deposed about the scar mark and that the blunt injury remains at the place of injury, which will continue till rest of his life and that the appellant has also suffered 30% permanent disability, to the whole body. It was contended that, despite the credible evidence, the awarding of compensation at Rs. 10,000/ - under the head loss of amenities is meager. Learned Counsel further contended that, the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant was an inpatient for 15 days and he incurred expenses towards medical care, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and the amount awarded in respect of thereof is meager and not just. Learned Counsel further contended that the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant was doing coolie work and because of the injuries on the abdomen, he could not do the work for more than 6 months and there is substantial loss of income, without noticing of which, the amount of Rs. 4500A awarded, is meager. Learned Counsel contended that there is 30% permanent disability, resulting in reduction of future earning capacity and no amount has been awarded thereunder. Learned Counsel contended that the award of the tribunal is unjust and hence calls for reconsideration.