JUDGMENT :

Ravi V.Hosmani, JJ.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for brevity), Chikkamagaluru, in M.V.C.No.762/2009 disposed of on 20.04.2013. The challenge is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2007 at about 11.15 A.M., petitioner was riding his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18/K-5652 from Hariharpur to Koppa. Near Hirekere bus stop, a Maruthi Omni van bearing registration No. KA-18/Z-1818 came with high speed from Koppa side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to M.S.D.M. Hospital, Koppa. Thereafter he was taken to KMV hospital, Manipal, for further treatment. Contending that despite treatment, he sustained permanent physical disability leading to loss of earning capacity, he filed petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. After service of notice by the Tribunal, respondent No.1–Owner-cum-driver of Maruthi Omini remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2-insurer of Maruthi Omni appeared and filed written statement denying the contents of the petition. It admitted issuance of insurance policy valid from 13.06.2007 to 12.06.2008, but submitted that its liability was subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It contended that the owner did not intimate about the accident. It also contended that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner himself and submitted that petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.

Respondent No.3-insurer of the petitioner’s motorcycle also filed objection statement opposing the claim petition on similar grounds as raised by respondent No.2.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for its consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 30.6.2007 at 11.15 A.M. while he was proceeding in his Bajaj Caliber motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-18/K-5652 due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni Van bearing Regn.No.KA-18/Z-1818 by the 1st respondent with excessive speed, thereby suffered grievous injuries?

2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner himself?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

4. What order?

7. In support of his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.29. Further examined two more witnesses were examined as C.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked document as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On behalf of respondent No.2, Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and he got marked copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R.1.

8. On 20.04.2013, the Tribunal passed an award answering issue Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.4 as per final order assessing compensation of Rs.10,36,000/-payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

9. We have heard learned counsel Sri. Vinod Gowda for appellant through video conference and Sri. B.C.Shivanne Gowda, for Sri. A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, who appeared in person.

10. Learned counsel Sri. Vinod Gowda, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager and calls for enhancement under all the heads. It was submitted that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

(1) one contusion over right temporal, region 4 cms X 3 cms;