AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—MFA No. 6001/2011 is filed by the insurance company and MFA No. 8054/2011 is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award passed by the learned XVI Addl. Judge, MACT, Bangalore, in MVC No. 903/2010, dated 28th February 2011. It is the case of the claimant that on 5.1.2010 at about 4.30 a.m. when he was proceeding in TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No. KA-4-4376 from Gundlagurki village to Kalasipalyam market along with his goods, near P.G. Halli, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side divider and light pole due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to K.C. General hospital. As such, claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
On the matter being contested by the insurer, the Tribunal raising relevant issues for consideration, after enquiry, holding that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle in question, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,18,400/- with interest at 6% p.a.
Being aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal with regard to saddling the liability on the insurer of the TATA Ace vehicle in question, the insurance company is before this Court contending that it is not the TATA Ace vehicle involved in the accident, rather, as per the evidence of the doctor, claimant sustained injuries due to fall from the moped vehicle and as such, the liability to pay compensation is not on the insurer, in the sense, claimant was not travelling in the TATA Ace vehicle, but sustained injuries due to fall from moped vehicle.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that as per the finding given by the Tribunal, having regard to the evidence on record and other relevant material on record, accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle in question. He further submitted that, it is rightly observed by the Tribunal that some stray admission regarding happening of the accident in the cross-examination of the claimant cannot be believed. As a matter of fact also, the Tribunal has given the finding that accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle in question in which claimant was travelling along with his goods i.e., cauliflower. Complaint is also filed on the very same day. He further submitted that, even the owner of the car bearing registration No. KA-50-2911 has filed a complaint as the TATA Ace vehicle in question fell on the said car. Accordingly, sought enhancement of compensation.
So far as challenge by the insurer is concerned, it is very much clear from the material on record that accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle in question. In view of the same, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the TATA Ace vehicle and claimant was not travelling in the said vehicle. So far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, as per the wound certificate, claimant has sustained fracture of cervical spine and other injuries. Claimant was aged 42 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, he is entitled for another sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The insurer to deposit the amount within three months. The claimant is not entitled for interest on the enhanced amount for the delay period.
Appeal is allowed in part accordingly.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal.