The court clarified appropriate assessments for disability and compensation in accident claims while underscoring the insurance liability principles under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3995/2018 is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mandya (for short, "The Tribunal"), in MVC.No.225/2011 dated 07.11.2016 on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas, MFA.No.5035/2021 is filed by the appellant - claimant for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.11.2010 at about 9.15 p.m., when the petitioner was walking towards 'My Sugar Kalayana Mantapa' on the left side of the road, near Sugar town playground, Mandya, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-11-T-9574/9575 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against him, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. As on the date of accident appellant was aged 40 years, he was an agriculturist and also involved in milk vending business. He was earning around Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. Heard Sri B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty H., learned counsel for the claimant, and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MFA.No.3995 of 2018 and respondent No.4 in MFA.No.5035 of 2021, has contended that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle, who was not possessing a valid and effective Driving Licence drove the vehicle in question. The owner of the offending vehicle also did not have a valid permit to drive the vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation under all conventional heads. The interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, which has to be reduced to 6% per annum. Further, the Tribunal has considered the disability of 42% without any basis, same has to be reduced. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

5. Per contra, Ms. Swati G. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant in MFA. No.5035 of 2021 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in MFA.No.3995 of 2018 vehemently contended that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The claimant has sustained permanent disability of 50% to the whole body, but the Tribunal has granted 42%, which is on lower side. The Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation under other conventional heads.

Hence, she prayed to allow her appeal.

6. We have perused the impugned judgment and award, as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties. The points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are:

1. Whether the appellant - Insurance Company proved that the owner of the offending vehicle has breached the policy conditions and the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid Driving Licence? Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it calls for enhancement or reduction?

7. To substantiate the claim, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. In support of the contention of the claimant, he relied upon Exs.P1 to P19 and also corroborated the oral testimony of PW.2 -