M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS Memorandum of First Appeal by the appellant is filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), challenging the validity and legality of the judgment dated 25-11-1996, passed in M. V. C. No. 631 of 1992 and other cases, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, wherein the learned Member had awarded a compensation of Rs. 53,000/- to the appellant on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 3-5-1992 involving a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing Regn. No. KA 09. F. 1179 on mysore-Bangalore Road near gate of Siddaiahna Koppal-Indavalu, so far quantum of compensation awarded.

( 2 ) THE Court has head the arguments on both sides.

( 3 ) IN view of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and at the time of hearing arguments, the following points would arise for consideration. 1. Whether the judgment of the Trial Court is legal and valid in restricting the claim of the appellant to Rs. 53,000/-?2. Whether there is any for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court?3. What judgment or award?

( 4 ) SRI P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the Trial Court is illegal and invalid and restricting the claim of the appellant to Rs. 53,000/ -. The Trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The material on record also shows that the appellant had sustained serious bodily injuries and also lost one kidney consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence he prayed for allowing the appeal.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, Smt. H. R. Renuka, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the lower Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, had arrived at a right conclusion, so far as it related to quantum of compensation. The appellant has failed to make out any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that the lower Court, on appreciation of the evidence, had come to a conclusion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. Moreover, the K. S. R. T. C. has not come up in appeal challenging the said finding. Hence this aspect need not be considered at all.

( 7 ) NOW coming to the quantum of compensation, the material on record shows that appellant had been a young boy of 19 years and had been a mason by profession and he had sustained blunt injury to the abdomen resulting in removal of right kidney and also lacerated wound over the parietal region and two abrasion injuries. The material on record also shows that the appellant had been an in-patient in Sanjay gandhi Hospital, Bangalore, between 4-5-1992 and 18-5-1992. The oral evidence of doctor also confirms the said injuries and also the hospitali- sation. He has also deposed that the appellant had come up for follow-up treatment on nine occasions. If there is any problem to the other kidney, the appellant will have to go for kidney transplantation. The medical bills on record amounts to Rs. 3,000/ -.

( 8 ) NOW the Court will have to assess the evidence on record to arrive at just conclusion.

( 9 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is also felt necessary to mention a decision of this Court in Basavaraj v Shekar, wherein the Division bench of this Court has clearly laid down the various heads under which an injured claimant would be entitled to, following the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 1. Pain and suffering; 2. Loss of amenities; 3. Shortened expectation of life, if any; 4. Loss of earnings or earning capacity or both; and 5. Medical treatment and other special damages.

( 10 ) I also feel it necessary to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document