1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.565/2011 dated 06.03.2012 on the file of the Principal, MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

2. MFA No.1049/2013 is filed by the claimant – T. Devaraju seeking enhancement of compensation. The connected appeal MFA No.6922/2012 is filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd./, challenging not only the liability but also quantum of compensation.

3. MVC.No.565/2011 was filed by the claimant seeking compensation on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.12.2010. According to him he was riding a Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-EC-5429 on NH-4 Tumkur-Bangalore Highway. The lorry bearing registration No.TN-34-K-5621 was parked by the side of the road without any signal or indicator. Since the parking of the lorry was not visible, the motor cycle ridden by the claimant dashed against the lorry on the rear side causing grievous injuries to him. Immediately, he was shifted to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala. Thereafter, he was shifted to Nimhans and later to Narayana Nethralaya. According to him he had spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. He has claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent – insurance company has filed its written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.12.2010 at about 05:30 hours, near Deluxe Petrol Bunk, on NH-4, Bangalore – Tumkur High Way on account of rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.TN-34-K-5621?

2. Whether the Insurer proves that driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.Tn-34-K-5621 was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation” If so, how much and from whom?

4. What order?”

5. The claimant got himself examined as PW-1. Dr. Murthiunjaya T.D., Orthopaedic Surgeon of Harsha hospital was examined as PW-2. Dr. Elvis Rodrigues, Assistant Professor, Neuro Surgeon, BMCRI was examined as PW3. A witness by name K.H.Manjunath, was examined as PW-4. Documents Exs.P1 to P28 were marked in their evidence. The respondents have not let in any evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Court below has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,98,838/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle submits that the Court below was not right in fastening the entire liability on the insurer of the lorry. It is argued that the lorry was parked on the left side of the Highway without any signal. However, the claimant who was riding the motor cycle should have been vigilant. He should have noticed the parking of the lorry. There was enough space for him to avoid the accident, if he was vigilant. The Court below ought to have apportioned the liability by holding that the claimant was also negligent to some extent.

8. Alternatively it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Court below is excessive. The Court below is not justified in holding that the claimant had sustained 60% permanent disability to the whole body. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.75,000/- is on a higher side. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:-

1) 2009 ACJ 2003, between Raj Rani and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd and others.

2) 2011 ACJ 2642, between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Asha Prasad and others.,

3) 2011 ACJ 2787, between Dr. Bhaktaprahlad and another Vs. Nirwani and others.,

4) 2009 ACJ 2600, between Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Chennappa Shettigar and others.,

9. On the other hand, Smt. B.