The court reaffirmed the principle of just compensation for road traffic accident victims, allowing for reassessment of damages under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC even without a cross-appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.540/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, N.R.Pura, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

2. The appellant was respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 was the claimant, respondent No.2 was respondent No.1, respondent No.3 was respondent No.2 in MVC No.540/2017 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The injured claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries and disability suffered by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.06.2017. It is contended that the claimant was travelling along with his wife, son, daughter in law and daughter in Maruthi Ertiga car bearing Chassis No.MA3FLEB1S00445873, having Engine No.3A5392088 from Magundi to Ullaladarga. It is further contended that respondent No.1 was driving the said car, when they reached Bantwala-Kadur National Highway, the driver of the car drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the road side rock, resultantly the car capsized. It is also contended that the claimant sustained injuries, which resulted in traumatic quadriplegia, spinal cord oedema, spinal cord contusion at C5-C6, right post ganglionic brachial plexus injury and damage to nerve roots, effacing the ventral surface of cord resulted in fully paralyse state. It is pleaded that the claimant was provided treatment at Father Muller's Hospital, Mangaluru, later he was shifted to Highland Hospital, Mangaluru, he was inpatient from 21.06.2017 to 07.07.2017, he spent more than 5,00,000/- towards treatment and he requires further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses. It is further pleaded that the injured-claimant was hail and healthy and was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. from his coolie work, due to the permanent physical disability he is unable to stand, walk and do day-to-day activities, hence, he lost the present as well as future earnings. It is also pleaded that the accident is caused due to negligence of respondent No.1, as respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, hence, they are liable to pay the compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the allegation of negligence. It was pleaded that as on the date of accident, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.3, therefore liability, if any, is recoverable by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed the statement of objections denying the manner of accident and negligence. It is further pleaded that respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also pleaded that respondent No.2 has not produced the vehicle documents immediately after the accident, respondent No.1-driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, hence, the owner is liable to pay compensation. It is further pleaded that the claimant has sought exorbitant compensation, they have denied, age, avocation, income and disability, and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and examined Medical Officer as CW-1, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-136 and Ex.C-1. Respondents examined RW-1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-8. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- p.m., considered the age of the claimant as 50 years, applied 13 multiplier, added 40% towards future prospects of the claimant, assessed the disability at 100% and awarded compensation of Rs.21,84,000/- under the head of loss of future earning due to disability. In all, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.31,38,450/- along with interest at 9% p.a. Being