The main legal principle established is the consideration of medical evidence, nature of injuries, loss of earning capacity, and medical expenses in determining the adequacy of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K.S.MUDAGAL,J. - Heard.

2. Challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.7430/2011, on the file of MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH.13), has preferred this appeal.

3. On 22/5/2010, at about 9.00 a.m., when the appellant/claimant was standing near VRL/Kataria Transport, Kanpur City, the driver of a Truck bearing No.UP 81 D 9951 hit him and caused the accident. At that time, respondent No.1 was the registered owner and respondent No.2 was the Insurer of said lorry. During the said period, claimant was working as Branch Manager in VRL Logistics. Due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries. After taking preliminary treatment in Kanpur Hospital, he was shifted to his home town, Bengaluru. As per Discharge Summary-Ex.P.6 between 27/5/2010 and 10/6/2010, he was treated as indoor patient in Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. Thereafter, as per Ex.P7 between 29/9/2010 and 11/10/2010, he was treated as indoor patient in KIMS Hospital & Research Centre, Bengaluru.

4. He filed MVC No.7430/2011 claiming that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. He claimed that due to grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident, he suffered permanent physical disability and thus claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000.00 from the respondents. Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2-Insurer alone contested the petition denying the accident, rashness, negligence on the part of the driver of lorry, age, occupation, income and disability of the claimant and its liability to pay compensation.

5. Parties adduced their evidence. The Tribunal, on hearing the parties, by the impugned award granted compensation of Rs.1,77,015.00, on different heads, as per the Table below;

6. Claimant challenges the said award on the ground that compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.

7. Sri G Manivannan, learned counsel for appellant/claimant reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that due to the accident, claimant has suffered permanent physical disability and he could not attend to his work for a period of three years. He submits that the compensation awarded is in total ignorance of the evidence on record.

8. Per contra, Smt. H R Renuka, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer justifies the impugned award claiming that as per the records of claimant himself, he was re-employed and paid salaries even during the laid-up period. She submits that there is no medical evidence to prove that claimant had suffered any permanent physical disability. Therefore, the compensation awarded is just and proper.

9. The occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry owned by respondent No.1 and the same being insured with respondent No.2 are not in dispute. The only medical evidence adduced by claimant to prove the alleged permanent physical disability was that of PW.2. He himself does not state that claimant has suffered any permanent physical disability. He does not state that claimant has suffered fracture. He is not the Doctor who has issued Ex.P.6 nor the Head of Department of Oral Surgery, Victoria Hospital. However, in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the contents of Exs.P.6 and P.7 - Discharge Summaries issued by Victoria Hospital and KIMS Hospital, Exs.P.8 and P.9 - Medical records of Minto Eye Hospital, Bengaluru and Ex.P.16 - case sheet of Victoria Hospital were not disputed. Ex.P.8 shows that claimant had suffered fracture of right nasal bone, right medial and lateral wall of right orbit with Pneumo orbita and fracture of right orbital floor with entrapment of right IR and right 10 muscle. Right orbital haematoma with sup. predominance leading to inf. displacement of right eye ball etc. Thus, it becomes clear that claimant had suffered three fractures.

10. The finding of Tribunal that salary of claimant was Rs.22,000.00 per month is not challenged by respondent No.2-Insurer. Though as per Ex.R.1, claimant was appointed on 1/6/2013, there was n