AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.
MFA No. 6677/2011 is filed by the insurer of a motor bike challenging the judgment and award made by the Tribunal on the ground of negligence and consequential liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive. MFA No. 7863/2011 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
As these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of finally by its common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, the points that arise for my consideration in these appeals is:
"(1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the insurer of motor bike to pay the entire compensation awarded to the claimants?
(2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction or enhancement?"
Sri. L. Srikanta Rao, learned counsel for the insurer of motor bike submits that admittedly claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor bike and as per FIR, charge sheet and spot mahazar the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The Tribunal, without considering this, has committed an error in awarding compensation and directing the insurer of motor bike to pay the compensation amount. He submits that the quantum of compensation awarded is contrary to Schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the insurer of motor bike and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.
Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and that he is entitled to recover compensation from anyone of the tortfeasors. The Tribunal, therefore is justified in awarding compensation and directing the insurer of motor bike to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and he prays to allow the appeal filed by the claimant and dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer.
Admittedly, the accident has taken place by involvement a motor bike in which the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider and an Indica car. The driver, owner and the insurer of Indica car are not arrayed as parties to the claim petition. The insurer and owner of motor bike, though were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition, they have not chosen to take steps to implead the driver, owner and insurer of car as parties to the claim petition. It is settled principles of law and as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No. 7415/2004 c/w MFA No. 7414/2004 whenever more than one vehicle is involved in an accident, claimants are entitled to maintain a claim petition against anyone of the tortfeasors and it is for the said tortfeasor to take steps to implead the other tortfeasors as parties to the claim petition. As already stated, though the owner and insurer of motor bike are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition, they have not taken steps to implead the owner and insurer of the car as parties to the claim petition. Hence, the contention of the insurer of motor bike in this regard is rejected.
Admittedly, claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act where claimant is required to establish only the occurrence of accident and not the negligence. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention of the insurer of the motor bike that the Tribunal could not have allowed the claim petition and directed the insurer of motor bike to pay the compensation amount awarded.
As per Ex. P2 wound certificate issued by Victoria Hospital, claimant had sustained the following injuries:
(1) Multiple rib fracture from 2 to 8 with B/L pneumothorax.
(2) Fracture neck of right femur with shaft of right femur
(3) Fracture of left ilium
(4) Fracture of left both pubic rami
(5) Fracture of left radius
Considering the injuries, Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ''pain and suffering'' is as per II Schedule of M.V. Act and it does not require interference.
Under Schedule II of M.V. Act, maximum amount could be awarded towards medical bills is Rs. 15,000/-, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 15,000/- under this head as against the bills produced by the claimant for Rs. 17,272/-.
The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,300/- p.m. as the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and by considering the functional disability at 25% and applying the multiplier 15 as per Schedule II of M.V. Act, the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 1,48,500/- under the head of ''loss of future income''. As such, it does not call for interference.
Further, Rs. 19,800/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ''loss of income during laid up period'' is also as per Schedule II of M.V. Act.
Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,88,300/- is in accordance with Schedule II of M.V. Act and there is no scope for either reduction or enhancement.
Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed as devoid of merit.
No order as to costs.