Sandeep Somayaji vs Srinivasa Somayaji

H.G. Ramesh, J.—M.F.A. No. 8242/2010 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas M.F.A. No. 4562/2009 is filed by the insurer challenging the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the injured is the son of the insured who is not a third party and also quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive. The case of the claimant is that on 10.02.20007 when he was travelling as a pillion rider in motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 20 R 6286 from Tookottu to Konaje, near Nadakallu curve, the rider of the motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and lost control due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and took treatment as inpatient. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Udupi seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal after framing several issues has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by it''s rider and has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 96,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the said award the claimant has filed MFA No. 8242/2010 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the insurer has filed MFA 4562/2009 challenging the liability on the ground that the injured is the son of the insured who is not a third party and also quantum of compensation and interest is excessive.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the insurer submits that me rider of the motor cycle in question is none other than the son of the insurer who is not a third party. As such question of awarding compensation does not arise. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded 8% interest in stead of 6% p.a. and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal after perusing the material on record has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation and there is no scope for interference.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the insurer that there is a contradiction as to the version of accident. It is submitted that the son caused the accident but police charge sheeted the father. However, the Tribunal having seen the evidence of the witness has concluded properly and also it is the case of the police in filing charge-sheet.

There is no dispute with regard to the accident in question aid the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The only dispute is with regard to relationship of the injured and the insured as son and father. The rider of the motor cycle had valid licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle in question was validly insured. In that view of the matter, the stand of the insurer that the injured who is son of the insured is not a third party cannot be accepted.

The accident is of the year 2007. The doctor has stated there is 3% disability to whole body. Considering the age of the claimant as 22 years and a student of II year MBA, year of accident as 2007, Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of academic year and disability, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment, excluding interest for the delayed period.

As far as the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is concerned it is reduced to 6% p.a. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed.

The insurer is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount including the enhanced compensation with interest within three months from today. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above.