The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings on negligence and determined that compensation must account for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, leading to an enhanced award.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

Both the appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 18.3.2016 passed in MVC No.30/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’]

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that, claiming compensation for a road traffic accident which occurred on 17.7.2008, the claimant filed a claim petition arraying the driver and owner of the offending bus as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The respondents entered appearance and contested the claim proceedings. The Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 18.3.2016, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,39,340/- together with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved MFA No.7616/2016 is filed by the owner of the bus and MFA No.4247/2017 is filed by the claimant.

4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri D.Vijaykumar for the owner of the bus and learned counsel Sri Nagaraj Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant.

5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the owner of the bus that the Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the bus was negligent in causing the accident in question. It is contended that the motor vehicle report (Ex.P4) is not disclosing any damages to the bus, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the driver of the bus is wholly negligent in causing the accident. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant justifies the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and contends that the claimant having suffered a fracture of the right tibia, as also having taken treatment for the same, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side.

7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, has been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are:

i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the bus negligent in causing the accident is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced?

Re. question No.(i):

8. In the claim petition, the claimant has averred that when he was returning to his house on a motor cycle and due to a mechanical fault when the said motor cycle was being loaded into an Autorickshaw, the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the claimant causing the accident in question. The driver and owner of the bus in their statement of objections have, in general denied the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and a doctor as PW.2. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the owner of the bus. The Tribunal while considering the material on record has held as follows:

“13. In this case, the Respondents have not led any oral evidence or documentary evidence in support of their defense. In this case, the accident as well as the injuries sustained by the Petitioner is not disputed. The only dispute raised by the respondents is that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Petitioner himself. This contention is not proved by the Respondents by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence before this court. On the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner as discussed supra substantiate the case of the Petitioner regarding the occurrence of the accident and s