IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident case, considering the claimant's loss of future earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, and future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal preferred by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.08.2018 passed in MVC No.759/2017 before I Additional District Judge & MACT, Tumakuru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’) and seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case is as under:

On 20.04.2017 at about 6.00 pm when the claimant and his brother got down from the passenger auto at M.H. Patna Gate and while proceeding by walk, at that point of time, one Hero Splendor Plus Motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-06 EU-6220 being ridden by its driver with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the claimant, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, claimant was shifted to Hemavathi Orthopedic and Trauma Centre, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of one month and underwent surgery and incurred huge expenditure towards medical treatment and other incidental charges.

4.1. It is stated that in view of accident having occurred as stated above, the jurisdictional Police registered a case in Cr.No.132/2017 against the owner of the motor cycle. It is stated that due to the accident the claimant suffered injuries, thereby causing permanent disablement resulting in loss of future earning capacity. It is further stated that claimant was aged 33 years, working in a Private factory and was earning Rs.11,080/- per month. It is further stated that claimant has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental expenses. It is further stated that prior to the date of occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and now due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he is unable to do the same work as he was doing prior to the occurrence of accident. Hence, he sought for compensation by filing a claim petition.

4.2. On service of notice to respondents, they appeared before the tribunal and filed their statement of objections denying the claim made by the claimant. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle pleaded that since motor cycle was insured with second respondent, any liability fastened on him would have to be indemnified by respondent No.2 as he had a valid insurance policy and a valid driving licence as on date of accident, whereas respondent No.2 took up the plea that the accident had occurred due to fault of the claimant. Therefore, he was negligent and it did not occur due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. It was further pleaded that rider of the motor cycle did not have valid and effective driving licence and was not wearing a helmet as on the date of occurrence of accident. It also denied the income of the claimant and further pleaded that a false case was registered in collusion with the owner of the motor cycle. On the basis of these pleadings, respondent No.2 sought for dismissal of claim petition.

4.3. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues, which reads as under:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a road accident on 20-04-2017 at about 6.00 pm due to the actionable negligence of the rider of motor bike bearing registration no. KA- 06-EU-6220 as alleged?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?

3. What Order?”

4.4. In order to prove and establish his case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1, an eye witness to the accident as PW.2 and the Doctor as PW.3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. On the contrary, the respondents have not stepped into the witness box and did not produce any documents in support of their case.

4.5. After hearin