The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on factors such as disability, future medical expenses, and loss of income.

JUDGMENT

M.G.S. Kamal, J. - The appeal in MFA. 4852/2019 is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2019 passed in MVC No. 7583/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) (for short 'Tribunal').

2. The facts leading upto filing of the present appeal briefly stated are that, on 15.11.2017, at about 9.35 a.m., the appellant/claimant was proceeding on his Activa Honda motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-02/HW-8576. When he reached near Chikkiraiah Estate, Bidadi Hobli, Byramangala-Hosur road, Ramanagara district, another motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-42/W-4080 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant was thrown on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Claimant was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. A case in Crime No. 487/2017 was registered.

3. Thereupon, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the ground that he was aged about 43 years, was doing agricultural and contract work and was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, resulting in grievous injuries to him and due to the same, he is not able to carry out his regular work as he was doing earlier, thereby reducing his earning ability. That the accident was caused on account of negligent riding of the motorcycle by respondent No. 2 and said motorcycle was insured with respondent No. 1. As such, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

4. Upon service of notice, respondent No. 2 did not appear and was placed ex parte. Respondent No. 1 appeared through its counsel and filed its statement of objections, admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle. However, denied the averments made in the petition regarding mode and manner of accident. It was contended that the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident as alleged by the claimant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW. 1 and one doctor namely, Prakashappa T.H. has been examined as PW. 2. Eleven documents were exhibited as Exs. P1 to P11. On behalf of respondent No. 1-insurance company, one Sri Nagendra R has been examined as RW. 1 and copy of policy has been exhibited as Ex. R1.

6. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider and consequently held that the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows:

7. The Tribunal directed the respondent No. 1-insurance company to pay the compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within 60 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submitted that the Tribunal gro