AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1512/2012 dated 04/08/2014 by the learned VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru. The appellant herein who is the claimant - petitioner before the Tribunal seeks enhancement of compensation.
The parties hereinafter will be addressed with reference to respective rankings before the Tribunal.
Originally the claimant-petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs because of the disability suffered by him due to injuries sustained by him out of the accident dated 24.11.2011.
It is stated that on 24.11.2011 at 3.00 pm., when the petitioner was riding TVS moped KA-04-EW-8267 at MES ring road, near Laxmi Vilas bank sustained injuries when a lorry bearing No.KA-01-C-134 hit moped that was ridden by the petitioner because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. Criminal case came to be registered in Cr.No.232/2011 by the jurisdictional police against the driver of lorry for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides.
The 1st respondent before the Tribunal is M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd., and 2nd respondent therein is the Reliance General Insurance Company. Perused the lower court records.
The insurance company denies the accident and the injuries. On the basis of material propositions asserted by each and denied by the other and available materials, the Tribunal framed the issues on accident, negligence, injury, disability and entitlement of compensation. The claimant is examined as PW1, Ex.P1 to 15, including FIR, Mahazar, wound certificate were marked on behalf of the petitioner.
The learned counsel submits that the compensation of Rs.1,30,500/- awarded has been very much on the lower side on all the counts. Further did not recognize the cost of living and the life style of the petitioner in the preaccident period.
The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that the appellant has chosen to make a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, in order to deceive the insurance company and thus abused the object of social legislation for compensation to accident victim. The petitioner claims that he sustained the following injuries: a) Abrasion left eyebrow 4X2 cms.
b) On left cheek with graze abrasion involving left side face.
c) Cut lacerated wound 5X5 cms with loss of skin left temporal region
d) Avulsion injury left ear pinna.
e) Abrasion 5X4 cms
f) Avulsion right pinna Clw 3X2 cms
The Tribunal has observed in the judgment that the petitioner was not wearing helmet as could be seen from emergency case record at Ex.P8 and P9.
The claim of the appellant is that the accident took place on 24.11.2011 at 3.00 pm., at the time and place stated above and he sustained injuries because of the said accident and underwent treatment at MS Ramaiah hospital, NIMHANS and Victoria Hospital, as reflected by Ex.P6 and P7. PW2 is the doctor, who treated the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner suffered 11% disability to the whole body. It is also claimed that the petitioner was disqualified from riding the vehicle between 02.12.2011 and 01.01.2012 and he was not wearing helmet. The Tribunal awarded the compensation as under:
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000.00
Surgery & incidental charges Rs.30,000.00
Medical bills Rs.5,000.00
Future Medical expenses Rs.50,000.00
Loss of amenities Rs.10,000.00
----------------
Rs.1,45,000.00
Less: 10% contributory Negligence 14,500.00
Total compensation ----------------
Rs.1,30,500.00
===========
Amount awarded under future medical expenses Rs.50,000/-. The loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- and his entitlement comes upto Rs.1,45,000/- and the Tribunal holds contributory negligence of 10% and restricts the amount to Rs.1,30,500/- and holds respondent No.1 and 2 therein being the owner and the insurance company respectively, are liable to pay the same to the claimant and also held that Respondent No.2 who is vicariously liable to indemnify the risk of 1st respondent, has to deposit the compensation amount with interest.
There is no cross objections or independent appeal by the insurance company nor are their right of appeal prejudiced.
In the context of circumstances, there does not appear to be substantial denial giving rise to doubt or suspicion regarding the accident, negligence or the injuries and the amount of compensation shown above under different heads, leading to Rs.1,45,000/- less 10%- Rs.14,500/-, restricted Rs.1,35,000/-. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Nazeera Banu reported in ILR 2009 KAR 385. In the context and circumstances, the grant of compensation neither unreasonably low nor exorbitant. The impugned Judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularities nor does it call for interference. Appeal is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and award dated 04.08.2014 passed in MVC No.1512/2012 by the MACT, Bengaluru is confirmed.