The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-assessment of compensation under various heads based on the claimant's injuries, treatment, and earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3, it is heard finally.

2. This appeal is preferred by the injured claimant by assailing the judgment and award dated 21.03.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.8477/2008 by the Prl. MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal')

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent-Insurance Company.

4. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.

5. The injured claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as MV Act) claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- inter-alia, contending that he was the driver working with Sharma Transport Company, Bengaluru; that on 05.02.2008 he was driving the bus bearing registration No.KA.01/B.2611 from Mumbai to Bengaluru, one Khaja Nawaz Khan was the second driver and Doddegowda was the conductor/cleaner of the bus. At about 08.45 p.m., when the bus reached near Chikkalagudda Cross on NH 4 after Sankeshwar, a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA.23/9090, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others, suddenly entered NH-4 from the cross road and thereby, a collision took place between the bus and Tipper lorry. Due to the said accident, the cleaner of the bus died on the spot and another person caught fire which broke out on account of spilling of diesel from the tank of the Tipper. The claimant who was the driver of the bus sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum, treated as an in-patient for a prolonged period. Thereafter, he was shifted to Seetha Bathija Hospital, Bengaluru. He has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment. He has lost his earnings at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. Apart from that, he has suffered disability. Hence, he has claimed the compensation on various heads.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and Insurer of the bus and respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the Tipper lorry and respondent No.4 is the owner of the Tipper lorry. Respondent No.4 remained absent and was placed ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.1, owner of the Volvo bus filed statement of objections by denying the manner of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant including the period of treatment, expenditure incurred, avocation of the claimant, earnings and disability. However, it was contended that the accident has occurred purely due to the negligence of the driver of Tipper lorry and the bus was insured with respondent No.2. If there was any liability of respondent No.1, the same had to be fastened on respondent No.2, the insurer of the bus. The driver of the bus had a valid and effective driving licence. He also contended that respondent No.1 had paid Rs.91,900/- to KLE Hospital towards the hospital charges and treatment of claimant. However, he had denied the monthly salary of Rs.16,000/- earned by the claimant.

8. Respondent No.2, the insurer of the bus also took similar contentions and that it was not a necessary party, as the accident had occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry by its driver and hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition.

9. Respondent No.3-Insurer of the Tipper lorry also filed statement of objections by denying all the averments made in the petition including the injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment expenditures incurred, avocation etc., and also denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper lorry. However, it admitted the issuance of policy in respect of Tipper lorry in question. But, if there was any liability, the same was subject to the terms and conditions of the Ins