Judgment :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the nominal enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Maddur (Karnataka) in M.V.C.No.106/2003, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. The appellant, who has suffered 90% permanent disability in his right leg which is paralysed and 50% to 60% disability of mouth and other parts of the body due to an accident which occurred on 28th February, 2003, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for award of compensation of Rs.21,50,000/- with interest.

5. The case of the appellant is that on 28th February, 2003 at about 11.30 a.m., he along with his wife-Savitha was travelling on a TVS Moped bearing Registration No.KA-01/H4236 on the left side of the road. He was waiting near T. Ballekere cross to take turn to go to Koppa. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.CNT/7206 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed into the vehicle of the appellant and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and in course was given treatment at different hospitals. The appellant contended that he was aged about 32 years on the date of accident and was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month. After the accident, he has suffered permanent disability and, therefore, he is not in a position to work as before. During the course of treatment in different hospitals, he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- so far. After the accident, he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Koppa. Thereafter he was shifted to Mandya General Hospital and then he was taken to J.S.S. Hospital, Mysore and from there he was further shifted to Mallige Hospital, Bangalore. Lastly, he was taken to St. John Medical College Hospital, Bangalore where he was treated as indoor patient and underwent an operation of the right leg mandible, right hip, left leg, stomach and jaw(face). In the said accident, the appellant lost all his teeth except 7 teeth in the upper jaw and 5 teeth in the lower jaw. After the operation he has become permanently disabled and will have to spend a huge amount towards medical expenses. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 90% in his right leg which has permanently paralysed; 50% to 60% disability of his mouth and 20% to 25% disability of his whole body. There was amputation below the knee of the right leg.

6. The owner of the lorry did not contest the case before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Assurance Company) disputed the claim and denied the allegations made by the appellant. However, it is admitted that the lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent, the Assurance Co. The Assurance Co. took a plea that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the TVS Moped by the appellant himself, who without giving any signal and without noticing the vehicle coming from the right side, dashed into the lorry and caused the accident. The Assurance Co. also denied the quantum of amount spent in the treatment of the appellant.

7. On hearing the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle as alleged ?

2. Whether petitioner proves that he sustained injuries due to impact of the vehicle as alleged?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what order or relief the petitioner is entitled?”

8. In order to prove his case, the appellant examined eight witnesses including PW.2-N.K. Narayanashetty, Sales Manager in Adiswara Marketing Company where the appellant was working since two and a half years, P