Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle to compensate the claimant in the judgment and award dated 14-02-2011 made in MVC No.7826/2099 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) has filed this appeal.

2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 21-07-2009 at about 9.00 p.m., while he was walking on the extreme left side of the road from East to West direction, at that time, a tempo bearing Registration No.KA03/A6134 came behind at a high speed in the negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, due to that he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Ambedkar Medical College Hospital. In the accident, he has sustained compound fracture of dislocation of left ankle, fracture of cuboids, open injury to the left foot. He has spent huge money for his treatment. Prior to the accident he was working as a tailor and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m., In view of the permanent disability he has suffered he cannot do the work of a tailor. First respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and second respondent is the RC owner of the said tempo. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-.

3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the second respondent owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. The first respondent-insurance company filed written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo. Further, the driver of the tempo was possessing LMV driving license and he had no effective driving license to drive the TATA 407 LMV. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against them.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

5. The claimant, in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the insurance company, one of the officials of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration sketch, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet and complaint held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the tempo and the claimant has sustained injuries. Hence, he is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of the injuries he has sustained, he had taken treatment from 21-07-2009 to 11-11-2009. Split skin grafting was also made on 31-08-2009. However the claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him to assess the disability. In view of that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.77,400/-, with interest at 6% p.a. With regard to liability is concerned, the insurance company examined one of its officers as R.W.1 and got marked the ‘B’ Register Extract and D.L. Extract of the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and contended that the driver of the tempo was having driving license to drive LMV, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is Tempo 407 transport vehicle. Hence, the driver of the offending tempo did not possess the valid driving license as on the date of accident and liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant has filed this appeal.

7. Sri. Shripad V Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle is contrary to law. The driver of the offending vehicle o