The negligence of the lorry driver led to significant injuries for the claimant, entitling him to enhanced compensation that considers both medical costs and loss of future earnings, including promotional opportunities.

ju

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

MFA No.9202/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed in MVC No.3632/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal') on the ground of quantum, whereas, MFA.Crob.No.105/2016 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.

-

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the claimant case before the Tribunal are as under:-

On 27.04.2009, at about 6.00 p.m., claimant-Rajan Pandiyan was travelling in a taxi bearing registration No.KA-03 D-4022 on NH-7, Bengaluru-Devanahalli Road and when he came near Bettahalasuru, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01 AE-2235 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and without any indication, took a turn towards NH-7 and during the process, the lorry driver lost control and dashed against the taxi, due to which, the claimant suffered grevious injuries all over his body. Hence, a complaint was lodged, which led to filing of FIR and investigation. In this regard, the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

-

4. Learned counsel Sri H.S. Lingaraj for the Insurance company contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant failed to prove the actual reimbursement/ medical facility availed by him from medi claim policy, contrary to the purpose for which, this Court had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Further, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the defence taken by the Insurance company in right perspective. The Tribunal granted higher amount of compensation under the head 'medical expenses' and the claimant has failed to prove the actual amount of reimbursement availed by him. It is further contended that the Tribunal has granted exorbitant interest of 8% p.a. on the compensation and it has to be reduced to 6% p.a. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Raghavendra E.P. for the claimant contended that the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', which is on the lower side. Infact, the claimant sustained diffuse axonal injury, depressed fracture of left occipital bone, contusion of brain over parietal & frontal lobes with SDH and Abrasion over left fore arm. Further, the Tribunal has granted lesser compensation under the heads 'loss of income during laid up period', 'attendant charges', 'conveyance', 'future medical expenses', 'loss of amenities and comfort' and 'permanent physical impairment'. The Tribunal also considered disability at 20%, though the Doctor issued disability certificate to the claimant at 88.83% to the whole body. Hence, he prayed to allow the Cross objection appeal.

-

6. We have perused the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. The only point that arises for our consideration in the appeal is:-

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for any interference or reduction?

7. After hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, which is on the lower side, for the reason that the Tribunal has not considered loss of promotional aspects of the claimant and the Tribunal withou