The court affirmed that the vehicle owner's liability is not negated by the driver's lack of a specific endorsement on his license, aligning with recent apex court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

(UMESH M. ADIGA, J.)

These appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 2^nd September 2013, passed by the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City, (SCCH-18), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.541/2012. MFA.No.1746/2014 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation and MFA.No.10321/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging fastening of liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and hence taken up together for disposal.

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

3. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.10.2011, around 1.30 p.m., while he was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41-R-3364 towards Nandi Hills road, near Rangapa Circle of Chikkaballapura, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Appe autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-43-3146 (for short `offending vehicle'), by its driver. As a result of which, claimant sustained fracture of both bones in the right leg. He had taken treatment in Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, and spent more than Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has been suffering from permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 - insurer denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

6. Claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 14 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked two documents at Exs.R-1 and R-2.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.2,59,294/-. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 33 years; his earning as Rs.200/- per day, applied the multiplier of `16', assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body and calculated the compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded following compensation :

Same is challenged in the present appeal by both the claimant and the insurer.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per the evidence of PW-2 doctor, the disability suffered by the claimant to whole body is 14.5%, but the Tribunal has taken disability as 10%. The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer contends that at the time of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license. He was authorised