JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 in M.V.C.No.3/2010 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Hassan ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 16.11.2009 at about 06:00 pm, while the petitioner was walking by the side of the road, behind Dental College, M.G. Road, Hassan, a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-13/M-4173 has hit and injured him. After taking treatment at Mangala Hospital, Hassan, he approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal after holding enquiry and taking the evidence, by impugned judgment, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,05,700/- with 6% interest p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri. H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that 13 days after the accident, F.I.R. was filed involving the Maruti van bearing Reg.No.KA-13/M-4173; for the first time when the petitioner was brought to the hospital, the nature of the vehicle which caused the accident and its number was not informed; no independent witnesses are examined to establish the accident. In spite of bringing these aspects to the notice of the Tribunal, it has lost sight of all these aspects. It is further contended that the compensation awarded is excess and disproportionate to the nature of injuries and he sought for interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that soon after the accident, the petitioner had fell unconscious; he was brought to the hospital and put on a ventilator. Only after the discharge, he came to know about the non-registration of the F.I.R. that the owner of the van who promised to bear the medical expenses and thereafter he has kept quiet, forcing the petitioner to file the complaint. In the hospital, there is a clear reference that the petitioner was hit by a van at 06:00 pm on the road behind the Dental College. A person who is put on ventilator shows the seriousness of the injuries sustained. He cannot be expected to go to the Police Station to file the complaint on the very day. It is the duty of the hospital to inform the Police that the petitioner was admitted due to the accident. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects, accepted the accident and passed the award. The compensation awarded is just and proper and there is no need for interference.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the materials on record.

8. The material on record did point out that there was an accident on 16.11.2009 at 06:00 pm by the side of the road, behind Dental College of Hassan, where a Maruti van had hit against the petitioner, injuring him. He was brought to Mangala Hospital, where he was under hospitalization till his discharge on 25.11.2009. After the discharge, he came to know that no information was given to the Police. Hence, he goes to the hospital on 27.11.2009, informs the same and the hospital sent a Police intimation under Ex.P6 on 27.11.2009 about the accident, injury sustained by the petitioner on 16.11.2009 at 06:00 pm. Ex.P8 is the in-patient admission register of Mangala Hospital. It is pertinent to note that on 16.11.2009, the petitioner was admitted as an in-patient bearing No.26328 and he was put on a ventilator. Ex.P9 is the in-patient case record which refers the history of accident as:

"H/o RTA near Dental College at 6 pm. It is alleged that hit by Van"

The brother of the petitioner has signed the case-sheet for not sending the M.L.C. intimation to the Police. The reason has explained by