AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the Insurance Co. challenging the award made by the Tribunal both on the ground of liability as well as quantum of compensation.
The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to the in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are:
On 27-3-06. when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in motor cycle bearing registration No. KA. 11/H.6036 on Mandya - Keragodu road near Honaganahalli gate, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition before the MACT, Mandya, seeking compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 56,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
In view of the Circular issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority directing the Insurance Companies including the appellant - Insurance Co. to cover the risk of associate passengers travelling in two wheelers and four wheelers, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. submits, he is not pressing the ground taken on the question of liability. Therefore, the only question that remains for my consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or does it call for enhancement?
As per the wound certificate Ex. P. 4 the claimant has sustained the following injuries:
(i) Tenderness over the right side of the Chest, over 5th to 8th ribs region with surgical emphysema present.
(ii) X-ray shows the fractures of 7th, 8th and 9th of the left ribs.
The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries indicated in the wound certificate and disclosed in the x-ray, has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 3,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges, Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of amenities as they are just and reasonable, there is no scope for reduction.
Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Co. is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to cost.