The court emphasized the necessity to reassess permanent disability and future earning capacity in determining just compensation for accident victims.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.04.2013, passed by the Senior Civil Jude and MACT, at Malavalli (for short “the tribunal”) in MVC No.2/2011, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant met with an accident on 24.04.2010 at Gejjalagere on Bangalore - Mysore Highway due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA-05-ME-5519 by its driver; and in the said accident, she sustained fractures of both bones left leg and other injuries. She has suffered permanent disability due to the said injuries. She had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. She was aged 33 years and earning salary of Rs.1,500/- per month by working as Secretary, Milk Dairy, Mallinathapura, Malavalli Taluk. She was also vending the milk and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. With these reasons, she prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 filed objections denying the contentions of the claimant. It also contended that rider of the motorcycle was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result he dashed against the Car belonging to respondent No.1. The driver of the said Car was not at all responsible for the accident in question. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy of insurance was in force as on the date of the accident and hence, if petition is allowed, the respondent No.2 - Insurer be directed to pay the compensation. For these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The respondent No.2 - Insurer filed objections denying the contents of the claim petition. It was also contended that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and the claimant was pillion rider. It was also contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these reasons, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant's to prove her case, examined herself as PW-1 and Doctor as CW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 as well as Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. The respondents have not lead oral evidence, but, marked the copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1.

7. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver and the Tribunal awarded following amount of compensation:

8. It is submitted that the driver of the offending Car has paid Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and the same was deducted by the Tribunal in the total amount of compensation awarded. The claimant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.

9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for t