JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 14.02.2013, passed in MVC No.5239/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 11.03.2011 at about 8.15 a.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EM-7325 towards Addihalli from Bindiganavile and when he reached near Kerekodi, at that time, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-54-1380 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. It was pleaded that the claimant was aged 38 years at the time of accident and he was an agriculturist by occupation and was supplying milk to the dairy and earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. Due to the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent residual physical disability and thereby lost his earning capacity. He has incurred huge amount for his treatment. Hence, the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-together with interest.

4. The respondent No.1, Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident and that the liability, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was pleaded that the respondent No.2 had entrusted the offending vehicle to a person who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. As on the date of the accident, the said auto rickshaw had no valid permit and fitness certificate. Hence, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle has filed written statement denying the entire petition averments. He has pleaded that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. As such, the claim of the claimant, if any, is liable to be answered by respondent No.1 by way of indemnifying respondent No.2 under the contract of the insurance policy. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.B.S.Jayaram was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P37. Respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,47,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation amount.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the appellant has suffered 3 major injuries and the doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 17.6% to the whole body, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 10% to the whole body which is on a lower side. Secondly, that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/-which is on a lower side.

Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned c