Compensation must be adequately assessed considering future income loss, permanent disability, and quality of life impact post-accident, justifying enhancements in the awarded amounts.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

The petitioner/appellant-Sri.Girish Chandra.J., S/o Jayaram H.C., has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned III Additional Judge and MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) in MVC.No.6573/2018.

-

2. The brief and relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under:

That on 08.09.2018 at about 3:40 a.m., the petitioner/appellant was traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-42-M-9491 along with other inmates from Bengaluru towards Hubli and the said car driven by one Kiran and when they reached near Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Hanagawadi village on NH-4 road, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side road divider and then it was toppled over and dashed to another fore coming lorry bearing registration No.MH-09-EM-9155 and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the driver of the car and petitioner/appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner/appellant was shifted to S.S.Institute of Medical Science hospital, Davanagere and from there he was shifted to BGS Global hospital, Kengeri, Bangalore. He has also taken treatment at Unity Lifeline Hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient and underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital, he has also taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient by spending huge medical expenses and other incidental charges. According to the petitioner/appellant, when the accident has taken place, he was about 27 years and working as an Information Technology Executive at DTDC and Cargo ltd., earning Rs.14,830/- p.m. Because of the accidental injuries, the petitioner/appellant has sustained severe injuries and has become permanently disabled. Thus, he prays to award the compensation as prayed for.

-

3. Before the Tribunal, both respondents have appeared and respondent No.2 has filed written statement. Respondent No.1 has not filed written statement. The assertions made in the petition with regard to the accidental injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant as well as his income and liability etc., have been disputed by the respondent No.2.

-

4. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, learned Tribunal has framed relevant issues. To prove the case of the petitioner/appellant, he himself entered the witness box as PW.1 and so also examined PW.2-T.S.Ramamurthy, PW.4-Dr.Veeresha U Mathad and PW.5-Dr. Raju K.P., and got marked 33 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. None of the respondents lead any evidence.

5. On hearing the arguments and on assessment of the evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as under :

-

6. Insofar as the liability is concerned, it fastened the liability on respondent No.2-Insurer of the offending vehicle holding that, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation. Now, the petitioner/appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation by preferring this appeal.

7. So far as the accident that has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the car owned by respondent No.1 is concerned, it is not in dispute. Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said offending vehicle is also not in dispute. The findings of the Tribunal on these aspects has attained final