JUDGMENT

The above appeal is filed by the Claimant being dis-

satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur1, vide judgment and award dated 6.2.2013 passed in MVC.No.313/2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that the claimant along with his family members were traveling in a Maruthi Car bearing No.KA-11/M9945 from Bengaluru towards Mandya, at which time a bus belonging to the first respondent – KSRTC came from the bus stand to the highway without

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

giving any signal and hit against the car of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant suffered injuries and the car was damaged. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained as well for damages to the car, the claimant filed MVC No.313/2012 arraying the KSRTC as first respondent and the insurer of the car as the second respondent.

4. The said claim proceedings were contested by the respondents. The claimant adduced his evidence as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P8 were marked in evidence. The evidence of the driver of the first respondent was adduced as RW.1. However, no documents were marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 6.2.2013 allowed the claim petition in part and ordered the first respondent to pay a compensation of `10,000/- together with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the above appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the claim made towards loss of damages caused to the car. Along with appeal, I.A.1/2015 has been filed to produce additional evidence. Enhancement of compensation awarded towards injuries is also sought.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 justifies the award made by the Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the above appeal.

7. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while considering the claim of the claimant regarding the vehicle damage has recorded a finding that the claimant has not produced the relevant documents to prove that he is the owner of the car. In the absence of the same, the claim made towards the vehicle damage has been rejected. With regard to the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has noticed that the injuries sustained are 3 simple injuries and awarded a global compensation of `10,000/-.

8. Along with the above appeal, the claimant has filed IA.1/2015 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to permit him to produce the ‘B’ Register extract to show that he is the owner of the car. No objections have been filed by the respondents to IA.No.1/2015.

9. The contentions have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arises for consideration are:

1) Whether IA.1/2015 is required to be allowed?

2) Whether the compensation is required to be enhanced?

10. Having regard to the fact that the ‘B’ Register extract of the vehicle in question has been produced and the same relates to the present case and the said document is relevant for deciding the questions that arise for consideration in the present appeal, it is just and proper that the said application be allowed and the documents produced along with the same be taken on record for adjudicating upon the present appeal. Accordingly, IA.1/2015 is allowed and the documents are taken on record. Accordingly question No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

11. It is forthcoming from the ‘B’ Register extract produced by the claimant that he is the owner of the car bearing No.KA-11/M 9945. Hence, it is clear that he being the owner of the car he is entitled to claim compensation for the damages caused to the car.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded tow