Compensation in personal injury claims must adequately reflect the severity of injuries, and claims must be supported by sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

These Appeals are filed by the petitioners, challenging a common judgment and award dated 25.03.2015 passed in MVCs No.162/2015, 163/2015, 273/2015 and 301/2015 by the Fast Track Court-II, and Additional MACT, Belagavi (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

2.1. On 28.06.2014, at about 15:00 hours, the petitioners in all the cases were travelling in a tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-49-327 owned by the petitioner in MVC No.301/2015. At that time, the driver of the NWKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-22/F-1743 drove the same at a high speed, in the rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the tempo. As a result, the petitioners have sustained a grievous injuries. The petitioner in MVC No.301/2015 filed a claim petition for claiming damages caused to the tempo. The petitioners in other MVCs filed claim the petitions under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, seeking a compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.

3. The NWKRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition except admitting the ownership over the offending bus and it is contended that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, clubbed all the claim petitions, and framed the common issues in all the claim petitions, except framing the separate issues for MVC NO. 301/2015.

5. The petitioners in MVCs No.301/2015 and 273/2015, were examined as PWs-1 and 2, and marked twenty-one documents as Exs.P1 to P21. They have also examined the Doctors as PWs-3 and 5, and the Proprietor of the Shivaji Motor Body Building Workshop was examined as PW-4. In rebuttal, the respondent- NWKRTC, neither led any oral nor documentary evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition with costs in MVC No.162/2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-; partly allowed the claim petition with costs in MVC No.163/2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-; partly allowed the claim petition with costs in MVC No.273/2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-; and dismissed the claim petition in MVC No.301/2015, vide common judgement and award dated 25.03.2015.

7. The petitioners in MVCs No.163/2015, 162/2015 and 273/2015 filed the appeals in MFAs No.102896/2015, 102895/2015 and 102898/2015 seeking an enhancement of the compensation, and the petitioner in MVC No.301/2015 filed an appeal in MFA No.102899/2015, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. She submits that, in MVC No.163/2015, the petitioner is a minor and he sustained the grievous injuries and the Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,000/-. She further submits that, the compensations awarded in MVCs No.162/2015 and 273/2015 are also on the lower side. She submits that, the petitioner in MVC No.301/2015 examined the Proprietor of Shivaji Motor Body Building Workshop as PW-4, who deposed that the vehicle was left in the garage and the cost of estimation of the repair is Rs.3,77,041/-. The Tribunal, without considering the evidence of PW-4, committed an error in dismissing the claim petition in MVC No.301/2015. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeals filed by the petitioners.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for NWKRTC supported the i