The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to reassess and enhance compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on the nature and duration of the claimant's injuries and treatment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging judgment and award dtd. 2/6/2014 passed in MVC No.79/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short), appellant has filed this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter MV Act).

2. Brief facts as stated are that on 30/4/2010, claimant-appellant, while travelling as pillion rider on Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA.19/R.5277, sustained grievous injuries, when it met with an accident with a Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA.19/MA.8487 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Alva's Health Centre, Moodabidri and thereafter, to City Hospital, Mangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient till 10/6/2010. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of Maruthi Swift Car under Sec. 166 of MV Act.

3. Respondent No.2 - Insurer opposed claim petition on all counts.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident that occurred on 30/4/2010 at about 10.30 a.m. on Moodabidri - Vennor Road, Kallabettu Village, Mangalore Taluk was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg. No.KA-19-MA/8487 by its driver?

2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-19-MA/8487 was not involved in the alleged accident?

3. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained injuries as a result of accident in question?

4. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom he is entitled

5. To what decree or order?

5. In support of claim petition, claimant examined as PW1 and one witness as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to P.33 were marked. On the other hand, respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence, but got marked Copy of policy as Ex.R1.

6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative; issue no.2 in negative and issue no.3 in affirmative and issue no.4 partly in affirmative by allowing the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,06,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum, against owner and insurer. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, that the car was insured with 2nd respondent - Insurer and that driver was holding a valid driving licence as on date of accident. It determined age of appellant as 53 years, occupation as businessman and his monthly income at Rs.7,500.00. And based on evidence of P.W.2 - Dr.Sudhakar T, Tribunal assessed his functional disability at 13% and computed total compensation of Rs.4,05,700.00 (rounded off to Rs.4,06,000.00), holding Insurer liable to pay compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Challenging award, only claimant has filed appeal.

7. Sri.Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing for appellant - claimant submitted that impugned award passed by Tribunal was not commensurate with facts and circumstances of case and evidence on record. Though claimant sustained malunited fractures of both tibia and fibula with osteomyelities of right tibia, Tribunal awarded meager compensation of Rs.40,000.00 towards 'pain and suffering'. Despite claimant taking treatment as inpatient for a total period of 63 days, award towards attendant charges and other incidental expenses was Rs.12,000.00 and Rs.15,000.00 respectively, which was on the lower side. It was submitted that fracture was malunited and as per evidence of P.W.2, there was disability to his right lower limb at 40%, however, Tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.50,000.00 towards 'loss of amenities'. Learned counsel sought for enhancement of compensation.

8. On the other hand, Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insu