This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short), by its judgment and award dated 28.01.2009 in MVC No.8840/2007.

2. The appellant/claimant in her memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by her, has prayed for allowing the appeal. The appellant has further stated that the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the second respondent relying on the charge sheet filed by the police for not having driving license by the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is also stated by the appellant that in other motor vehicle claim cases the Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company was liable for payment of compensation and the Insurance Company has satisfied the award passed by the Tribunal.

3. Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

4. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by the appellant in her memorandum of appeal.

6. The present appeal being the claimant’s appeal and the respondents having not preferred either cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the accident need not be re-analysed again. The questions that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the alleged liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured.

7. After analyzing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:

Amount (Rs.)

Towards pain and sufferings 30,000.00/-

Towards food and nourishment 03,000.00/-

Towards attendant charges 03,000.00/-

Towards traveling expenses 02,000.00/-

Towards medical expenses 17,360.00/-

Towards loss of amenities 20,000.00/-

Towards residuary disability 15,000.00/-

Total 90,360.00/-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that the appellant had sustained two serious fractures of the bones, as such, the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering was a meager compensation. According to the claimant who was examined as PW.1 and PW.2, the doctor and also the wound certificate at EX.P4, the claimant had sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and also fracture of both bones of right hand. Thus, left lower limb and right upper limb had sustained grievous injuries in the form of fracture of both bones. In the light of the said serious fractures sustained by the claimant and her treatment as an inpatient in the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital from 25.11.2007 to 14.12.2007 for a period of 19 days, I am of the view that the compensation awarded towards pain and sufferings deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.15,000/-to bring it to a reasonable point.

9. Towards the food and nourishment and also for the attendant charges the Tribunal has awarded compensation at a sum of Rs.3,000/-each. Considering the fact that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 19 days and the nature of injury, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded towards food and nourishment and attendant charges deserves to be enhanced each by a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The