AND

AWARD

DATED

23.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.708/2014 ON THE FILE OF

XIX

ADDITIONAL

SMALL

CAUSE

JUDGE,

MACT,

BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

COMPENSATION

AND

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT

OF

COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with

the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 23.03.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.708/2014, on

the file of the XIX Additional Small Cause Judge, MACT,

Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum

of compensation.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant

before the Tribunal is that on 16.01.2014 at about 7.30 p.m.,

when he was proceeding on motorcycle as a pillion rider and

one Hanumantharaju was riding the motorcycle, at that time,

one JCB came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he fell down

and sustained injuries to the head and left eye. Immediately,

- 3 -

he was shifted to Harsha M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. After the

first aid, he was referred to Columbia Asia Hospital, wherein

he took the treatment as an inpatient. He was subjected to

surgery and due to the accidental injures, he has suffered

permanent disability.

4.

In pursuance of the claim petition, the Insurance

Company appeared and filed the written statement denying all

the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent

No.2 also appeared and filed the written statement and

contended that the vehicle is insured with respondent No.1

and if any liability, the same has to be fastened on the

Insurance Company. The claimant in order to prove his case,

examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the doctors as

P.W.2 and P.W.3 and eye-witness as P.W.4 and got marked

the documents at Exs.P.1 to 20. On the other hand, the

respondents examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and

got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal

after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed

on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting

compensation of Rs.3,26,200/- with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this

Court.

- 4 -

5.

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

would contend that the Tribunal failed to take note of the

nature of injures sustained by the claimant and he has lost

the vision in one eye and also he had suffered brain injury

i.e., severe head injury; diffused traumatic brain injury,

severe injuries to left eye resulting in loss of vision and the

Tribunal has taken the disability of only 20% and he is aged

about 23 years and working as a fitter. The doctor also

deposed that physical disability has resulted in 68% of

neurological disability and the same has not been considered

by the Tribunal and the Tribunal lost sight of the nature of

injuries and disability suffered by him. The Tribunal has taken

the income of Rs.6,000/- per month for the purpose of

assessment of compensation and the compensation of

Rs.31,000/- awarded under the head pain and suffering is

very meagre and no compensation is awarded under the head

loss of amenities and the compensation awarded under other

heads are also very meager and he was an inpatient for a

period of 21 days in total. The learned counsel submits that

only an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- was admitted towards

medical expenses as per the ESI records and the records also

reveals the same, but the medical expenses spent is

- 5 -

Rs.5,01,316/- and remaining amount was not awarded.

Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

6.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

No.1/Insurance Company would contend that the doctor has

not been examined in order to prove the loss of vision and

only relies upon the evidence of neurological disability. The

doctor P.W.2 has not spoken anything about the loss of vision

and P.W.3 spe