Point of law: Accident claim – Compensation enhanced - Since the disability is maintained at 12% and the multiplier of 18 is adopted as the claimant was aged 19 years

JUDGMENT :

1. MFA.6863/2014 is by the claimant seeking for enhancement, while MFA.1541/2014 is by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Tribunal on the ground that there was no motor vehicle accident at all.

2. On 29.08.2012, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) by the claimant – Mr.Ravi @ Ravindra. In the claim petition, he basically stated that while he was returning to his village after finishing his work on 24.05.2012, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA03-EJ-5126 hit him from behind and as a result, he suffered grievous injuries.

3. In other words, it was his case that he was a pedestrian and while he was walking by the road, he was struck by the motorcycle. He contended that he had suffered a permanent disability and claimed a total sum of Rs.9,75,000/-as compensation.

4. The 1st respondent i.e., the owner of the motorcycle entered appearance and contested the matter by denying all the claim averments. He further stated that his motorcycle was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was valid as on the date of the accident. He stated that if any compensation were to be awarded by the Tribunal, the same will have to be satisfied by the Insurance Company.

5. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company also entered appearance and filed objections. The Insurance Company initially denied all the claim averments. Subsequently, by way of an amendment, the Insurance Company put forth the plea that in an investigation conducted by it, it had been found that there was no accident and a false story had been concocted for the purpose of the claim. They stated that the claimant had fallen from a tree and his grievous injuries were relatable to the said fall and not to any motorcycle accident. They also stated that the police authorities had also investigated the matter and submitted a ‘B’ report and therefore, it was clear that the injuries were not as a result of a motorcycle accident, but due to a fall from a tree.

6. In support of the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also one Byresha Y.S., an eye witness to the accident as P.W.2 and one Dr.N.T.Ramesh as P.W.3. He produced, in all, 15 documents.

7. The respondent – Insurance Company examined one of its officials Sri C.A.Chandrashekar as R.W.1 and through him produced 7 documents.

8. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that an accident, as stated by the claimant, had occurred and the claimant was entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,26,680/-. The Tribunal, as regards the occurrence of the accident, stated as follows:

“25. On perusal of Ex.R.5, the concerned police have submitted ‘B’ final report stating that no such accident was taken place and the petitioner had not sustained any injuries alleged to have been sustained in RTA. On careful perusal of Ex.P.12 case sheet wherein the history of injuries is mentioned as due to RTA. On perusal of Ex.P.4 wound certificate issued from PHC, K.M.Doddi, which reveals that the history of injuries is mentioned as road traffic accident on 24.05.2012. It is significant to note that the respondent No.2 Insurance Company has not chosen to examine the concerned I.O. who submitted ‘B’ final report to disprove the fact that the accident was not due to RTA. Therefore, the respondent No.2 Insurance Company has failed to prove that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are not the accidental injuries and the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-EJ-5126 was not involved in the accident by adducing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. All the medical records produced before the Court clearly go to show that the petitioner had sustained injuries in RTA. It is to be noticed that merely because the concerned police have submitted ‘B’ final report it cannot be said that the claimant/injured per