The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment of compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries, taking into account the severity of the injuries and the claimant's loss of future earning capacity.

JUDGMENT

B. Veerappa, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 24.03.2016 made in M.V.C.No.2185/2012 on the file of XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., (SCCH-8), Bengaluru, ('Tribunal' for short) awarding total compensation of Rs.11,31,647/- with 8% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 04.02.2012 at about 4.30 p.m., she was proceeding in her Scooty bearing No.AP-24-P-6203 at Kariyappa road and OVH road junction from North to South direction slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulation, the rider of the Honda Activa bearing No.KA-05-HP-1316 came from OVH road side i.e., from East to West direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against her vehicle, due to the said accident, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein she took treatment as inpatient for a period of 2 days. Later she was shifted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, she took treatment as an inpatient and discharged from the said hospital. Again she was admitted to Rajalakshmi Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru and took treatment as an inpatient by spending a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards her treatment.

3. It is further case of the claimant that prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy working as a Doctor at Gunasheela Surgical and Maternity Hospital, Bengaluru by drawing monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. Due to accidental injuries, she could not do the work as before. The jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.8/2012 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the rider of the offending vehicle. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- in the claim petition.

4. In response to the notice issued, the 1st respondent - owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement by denying the claim averments and contended that the petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and that the appellant/claimant was proceeding in Scooty slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations and other averments are denied and sought to reject the claim petition.

5. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended, that the petition is not maintainable and further contended that the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sections 134 (C) and 158 (6) of the M.V. Act and denied the age, avocation, income of the claimant and further contended that the claimant has falsely implicated the vehicle in order to get the compensation. The rider of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. The 1st respondent has entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving licensed. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that she has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in Wound certificate, in a road traffic accident on 04.02.2012 at about 4.30 p.m., Kariyappa road and OVH road junction, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Honda Activa bearing No.KA-05-HP-1316?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation?

3. What Order or Award?"

7. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined herself as PW-1 and got examined five more witnesses on her behalf as PW-2 to PW-6 and got marked, the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.35. The 1st respondent examined himself as RW-1 and 2nd respondent has got examined its Deput