Livestock carried in a vehicle falls within the definition of goods under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and a person accompanying such goods is covered under the insurance policy. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for any claim from such a person. The concept of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act requires a just determination of compensation, taking into account the claimant's physical disability, loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life.

1. The claimant is in appeal against the judgment and award in MVC No.141/2001 on the file of the MACT at Karwar, being dissatisfied with the grant of compensation as also the order absolving insurer of its liability.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. The appellant filed a claim seeking compensation on material proposition that on 31.12.2000 at 14.30 hours, he was traveling in autorickshaw goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-30/4442 accompanying cow and calf for transportation of which, the vehicle was hired. He was in the company of his co-brother Narayan Krishna Bhat. While they were proceeding, the driver was rash and negligent and by such act, lost control when they reached Valagalli Temple in Kumta taluk. The vehicle fell on side and capsizes. Due to the impact of such fall, the claimant suffered fracture of bones of both the legs and was immediately rushed to the hospital at Kurnta. Therefrom, he was shifted to KMC Hospital where, the doctors tried their best, but failed to save the limb and it was amputated below knee. The other leg also suffered physical disability despite best treatment in KMC Hospital, Manipal. He referred to the nature of treatment given as also the expenditure incurred. The period of treatment and expenditure is substantiated through the medical records of the hospital.

4. Appellant contended that due to physical disability which has visited him as a consequence of the accident, he lost income. He was an agriculturist and also a professional cook. From both the sources, he had earning of Rs,8,500/-per month. The work is now impossible and he has lost the income.

5. His claim was resisted by the insurer firstly contending that the accident has not occurred in the manner stated by the petitioner and secondly, even if it were to be presumed that accident did occur, it was not due to the negligence of its driver. Thirdly it was contended that the driver did not have or possess effective driving licence as on the date of accident. The insurer also questioned the claim of the petitioner with regard to his loss of earning and the physical disability that he suffered.

6. The owner of the vehicle had also resisted the claim in which, defence is denial simplicitor without any specific plea. However, the insure3d has elaborately averred that the vehicle was insured validly and liability if any is on the insurer to discharge the award.

7. Based on material proposition in the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal raised relevant issues for consideration and applying the evidence tendered by the petitioner as P.W.1 and documentary evidence which comprised the copy of FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report and other investigating papers, held the claimant had substantiated the accident was a result of negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, who was respondent No.1 in the party array. The said finding has not been questioned by the insured or the insurer. Therefore, it has reached finality.

8. In this appeal, the claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation on the basis that there is no realistic determination of the compensation. The tribunal has adopted a improper approach to grant compensation under various heads notionally.

9. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend the following:

The claimant was traveling in the vehicle accompanying the goods and therefore, was statutorily covered. The compensation was liable to be paid by the insured and the insurer together and in view of the currency of the policy, the insurer had to discharge it. Secondly, it is urged due to amputation of leg, the claimant is physically invalid and incapable of not only living a normal life, but also has suffered total loss of earning capacity. Thirdly, he had incurred heavy expenditure towards medical treatment, conveyance, diet and incidental which, the tribunal has not granted. Lastly, it was urged that despite the claimant having estab