Compensation awarded in motor accident claims must align with evidentiary standards and logical assessment to ensure fairness in financial recovery.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant.

2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.6134/2013 on the grounds of liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that, on 08.10.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. respondent No.1- claimant was travelling as a passenger in the car bearing Registration No.KA-51/F-24 on NH.48 road and when the car reached near Kothipura Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-06/ C-3537 came and dashed against the car as a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Kunigal for first aid and from there, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

4. The tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, granted total compensation of Rs.66,45,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contended that the tribunal, without considering the documentary evidence on record, has fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.2,00,000/- per month and erred in holding that the claimant has suffered 10% disability. The driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective licence as on the date of the accident and hence, there is violation of policy conditions. Further, the claimant has not impleaded the insurer of the car bearing Registration No.KA-51/F-24 as a party and hence, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. The tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier of 12 instead of 11 as the age of the claimant was 51 years as on the date of the accident. The tribunal awarded an exorbitant compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under the head 'future medical expenses' and Rs.14,00,000/- under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. The tribunal has also erred in awarding 9% interest per annum which is exorbitant one and on these grounds, learned counsel submits that the same requires interference by this Court.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant contended that the tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has granted fair and reasonable compensation and hence, no interference is called for in this appeal.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the following point arises for our consideration, Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and/or requires to be reduced?

8. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, the counsel for appellant contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the Drivers of both the vehicles, but the claimants have made an allegation against the Driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA 06/C-3537. We have perused the charge sheet (Ex.P6), it clearly demonstrates that, the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against the Driver of Tata Ace and has not made any allegation against Driver of car bearing Registration No.KA 51/F-24