JUDGMENT

Claimant is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.404/2013 dated 30.07.2016 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Chikodi.

2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

Claimant having suffered accidental injuries, being rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.MH-13/M-5671 which met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-10/AN- 3742 on 30.12.2012 at about 12.30 pm. Charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the Tata Sumo.

3. Claim Petition, on contest, came to be allowed in a sum of Rs.25,000/- as global compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant and liability was fastened on the owner of the Tata Sumo on account of the fact that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not insured and the earlier insurance obtained on the vehicle, expired on

11.10.2012.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant is in appeal.

5. Sri Ashok A.Naik, advocate for the appellant/claimant contended that due to the accident, claimant suffered fracture of shaft of right femur and also fracture in neck of femur on the right hip. Therefore, award of compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- is too inadequate and sought for enhancement of compensation.

6. He also contended that since the policy is subsequently renewed, Insurance Company be liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner.

7. Per contra, Smt.Padmaja S.Tadapatri, advocate for the Insurance Company contended that the vehicle was not insured as on the date of the accident and earlier policy issued to the vehicle expired on 11.10.2012 and therefore, no liability can be fastened on to the Insurance Company.

8. Taking note of the fact that there are two fractures suffered by the claimant, awarding compensation globally in a sum of Rs.25,000/- is incorrect.

9. The doctor who issued the disability certificate mentions the disability factor at 43% for the whole body. Since he is not the treated doctor at least 1/3rd should have been taken into consideration.

10. Since the liability is on the owner who is not contesting the matter, instead of enhancing the compensation on each and every head, like loss of amenities, loss of future income due to the injuries suffered and the disability suffered, loss of income during laid up period, attendant and other charges, enhancing the quantum compensation by another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

11. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) As against compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, claimant is entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, recoverable from the owner of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-10/AN-3742.

(iii) Ordered accordingly.