The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, considering the nature of injuries, loss of earnings, and future earning capacity, as well as the validity of the driver's license and the liability of the insurance company.

JUDGMENT :

K. Somashekar, J.

1. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matters are taken up for final disposal.

2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and award rendered by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Chitradurga in MVC No. 301/2010. MFA No. 9067/2012 is filed by the insurance company challenging liability. MFA No. 3550/2013 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under:

It is stated in the claim petition that on 26.09.2006 at 8.30 a.m. petitioner was waiting for bus along with goods at Muddapura gate in order to go to APMC, Chitradurga. At that time Goods auto bearing Regn. No. KA-17/TR-1796 came there and the petitioner boarded the said auto along with cotton bales. When the Auto Rickshaw was proceeding near Beeravara village, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations in a high speed. As a result of that, the auto capsized on the left side of road near Murarji Vidhaya Peetha Road cross, Beeravara village. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to District Hospital, Chitradurga and for better treatment referred to CG Hospital, Davanagere and Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere. He has spent huge amount towards his treatment. Prior to accident he was hale and healthy and he used to earn Rs. 1,50,000/- p.a. by doing agriculture work. Due to the accident, he has suffered disability and loss of earning capacity. On these grounds, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

4. Upon service of notice, respondent no. 2 entered appearance and filed objection statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte.

5. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. To prove and substantiate their case, petitioner got examined himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P56 and Exs.C1 and 2. On behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and EXs.R1 to R3 were got marked. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,06,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. It is this judgment, which is under challenge in both the appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the judgment and award of the Tribunal in all probabilities is unsustainable either in law or on facts. Further, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Tribunal has not considered the medical bills, treatment expenditure, disability aspect and loss of earnings and future income. Further, the Tribunal has also not considered the compensation in respect of food, nourishment and conveyance and also loss of earnings. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the claimant seeks for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal filed by him.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court and against the facts and materials available on record and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. The Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the insurance company without noticing that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the said commercial goods vehicle as on the date of accident. The driving licence possessed by him was in respect of non-transport autorickshaw cab as per Ex.R2 and not in respect of commercial autorickshaw goods vehicle whic