Compensation for personal injury must adequately restore the claimant's position prior to the accident, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

This appeal has been filed by the petitioner/claimant inter alia seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident that took place on 06.06.2018 when he was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-28-EP- 1060 from Sindagi to Bailhongal. It is his case that, at 2.00 p.m. when the said motor cycle came near Sanshi Cross within the limits of Kaladagi jurisdiction, the rider of the motor bike drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and jumped over a road hump. Because of this, claimant fell down and sustained head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot. In the said Hospital he took treatment as inpatient from 6.6.2018 to 18.6.2018. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sakra World Hospital, Bengaluru. At the time of filing this petition, he was still under treatment. According to him, his guardian has spent more than Rs.35,00,000/- towards medical expenses. When the accident took place, the petitioner was aged 21 years and studying in medical field. In addition to that, he was doing part time service as an Assistant in Managuli Hospital, Sindagi and was earning Rs.19,000/- per month. According to him, he is completely bed ridden and unable to do any type of work. He has become physically and mentally disabled due to accidental injuries and completely depending on others. To meet the expenses of attendant he is spending 600 to 800 per day. He has lost his marriage prospects and his future dreams are shattered. Thus, he claims that both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.3 crores as claimed in the petition.

2. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared and denied the nature of accident so occurred. Respondent no.1 denied his negligence as alleged in the petition. According to respondent no.1, petitioner himself fell down and sustained injuries. He denied the age, income, the present health status of the petitioner, so also contends that as the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident, he was holding the effective driving licence, liability may be fastened on respondent no.2 to pay the compensation being the insurer.

3. Whereas, respondent no.2 contends that, it disputes the very nature of accident so occurred, claimants age, income and sufferance of permanent disability. According to respondent no.2 Insurer, the petitioner has glorified the injuries to get more compensation. According to insurer, the said vehicle has been falsely implicated in collusion with respondent no.1, police and hospital authorities. The driver was not possessing the driving licence. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Based upon the aforesaid rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed in all four issues. Sofar as jurisdiction for entertained of petition, it was answered in favour of claimant by the Tribunal by orders dated 10.6.2019 and respondent no.2 has not challenged the said finding, by preferring any independent appeal.

5. It is the case of the claimant that, he is completely bedridden. Because of the accidental injuries, he has become mentally and physically challenged therefore, he sought permission of the Tribunal to prosecute the petition through his father being his natural guardian Tribunal has granted permission. The order permitting natural guardian has attained finality.

6. To prove the claim of the claimant, the father of the petitioner/claimant by name Srikanth Mortheppa Hugar entered the witness box as PW.1 and two doctors by name Dr. T.R.Chandrashekar and Dr.Manjunath Akashi were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.26 and closed claimant’s evidence.

7. To rebut the evidence of the claimant, one Anil Kumar Kulkarni, an official of R2 examined as RW.1 and through him, Ex.R1, a copy of Insurance policy which was valid as on the date of accident came to be marked. The learned Tribunal, on hearin