The court established that delay in filing a complaint does not automatically invalidate a claim, and proper income assessment must be conducted for compensation calculation.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 6^th July 2013, passed by the XIX Addl.Small Causes Judge & M.A.C.T., Benglauru, (SCCH-17), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.5988/2010. Claimant filed MFA.No.5354/2014 and the Insurance Company filed MFA.No.7812/2013.

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.03.2010, at about 11.45 p.m., the claimant along with his brother-in- law G.Babu, were going on foot towards Kamakshipalya bus stop, Bengaluru. Claimant was struck by a motorcyclist due to rash and negligent riding of his vehicle Honda Activa motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01- EP-1592; as a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries. Initially he had taken treatment at Thirumala Hospital and later on, he was shifted to St.Theresa's Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 07.03.2010 to 28.03.2010. He spent huge amount towards medical expenses. He is suffering from permanent disability. With these reasons, claimant prayed for enhancement of compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/insurer of the offending motorcycle contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the case just to claim compensation. Claimant must have met with an accident by an unknown vehicle. There is long delay in filing the complaint. It also denied other averments made in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

6. Claimant examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 12 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-12. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and one document was marked as Ex.R-1.

7. After hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and awarded compensation as below :

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

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. No compensation is awarded under other heads. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation and dismiss the appeal of the insurer.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer contends that there is delay of six days in fling the complaint and it is not properly explained. According to the claimant, his brother-in-law was accompanying him at the time of the accident. He could have lodged the complaint after the accident. There is a correction of date in the wound certificate at Ex.P-4. There is no explanation in this regard. Income of the claimant is not proved and relevant witnesses have not been examined. In the cross- examination, PW-1 says that still he was working in the same hotel and earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, there is no loss of income due to the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition, as well as appeal filed by the claimant and allow its appeal.

11. Following points arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident had taken place due to involvement of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-01-EP- 159