Court modified compensation amounts awarded for injuries in a motor accident, emphasizing the need for adequate reflection of the severity of injuries according to established precedents.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

These appeals are listed for admission. However, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 05.01.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.627/2013 and M.V.C. No.629/2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) relating to the same accident.

3. The appeal in M.F.A. No.101749/2015 is filed by the claimant in M.V.C. No.627/2013 and M.F.A. No.101750/2015 is filed by claimant in M.V.C. No.629/2013 praying for enhancement of the compensation.

4. Parties would be referred to with their ranks, as they were before Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5. The claimants have filed the claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation in respect of the accident that has taken place in between motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-15/S-726 and KA-29/M-1570 on 12.02.2013 at 02.30 p.m. on Ilkal-Hungund NH-50 road near Prakash Dhaba and due to that both claimants have sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the claimants have filed separate claim petition seeking compensation.

6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his objection statement denying the entire averments of the petitions and further held that his vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and driver was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and hence, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that compensation to be payable to the claimants, then it shall be saddled upon respondent No.2-insurer and hence prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

7. On service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement, wherein it denied the entire averments made in the petition except admitting that the TATA Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-29/M-1570 was validly insured with it and contended that the driver was not having valid driving licence. It would further contend that the accident happened in between two vehicles and it is mainly due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-15/S-726 and thus prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

8. On behalf of claimants, 4 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.57 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Ex.R.1-policy copy.

9. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident is proved and further it is held that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of TATA Sumo vehicle, the accident was occurred.

10. In MVC No.627/2013, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,550/- and in MVC No.629/2013, it has awarded Rs.3,12,940/- along with interest at 6% per annum. 11. Not satisfied with the aforesaid compensation, claimants in MVC No.627/2013 and MVC No.629/2013 are before this Court.

12. Heard arguments of learned counsels for appellants/claimants and respondents.

13. Learned counsel for claimants Sri G.S.Hulmani would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 has awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in case disability of the minor child is in between 10% and 30% under the