This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9) has been

filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and

3

decree dated 02.04.2012 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil

Judge and MACT-V at Davanagere in MVC No.815/2008.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 21.05.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. the

claimant was proceeding on his pick-up van baring

registration No.KA-17/A-6745 near Anagodu village on NH-

4. At that time, a LMV Tata Mobile vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-22/N-1161 being driven by its driver at a

high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to

the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

hospitalized.

3.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166

of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he

spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance,

etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred

4

purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver.

4.

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.3 and 4

appeared through counsel and filed written statements in

which the averments made in the petition were denied. The

age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical

expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself

is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further

pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions

of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-

parte.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

5

the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1

and Dr.Palakshaiah was examined as PW-2 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P201. On behalf

of the respondents, three witnesses were examined as RW-

1 to RW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to

Ex.R5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment,

inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of

rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by its

drivers, as a result of which, the claimant sustained

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,11,200/- along with

interest @ 7% p.a. and directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4

both the insurance companies to deposit the compensation

amount at 75% and 25% respectively along with interest.

Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6.

Sri Rajendra, the learned counsel for the

claimant has raised the following contentions:

6

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was

doing driving work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but

the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only

Rs.3,500/- per month.

Secondly, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries.

The whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 20%

is on the lower side.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

a period of 60 days. Even after discharge from the hospital,

he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He

has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to

suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life.

Considering the same, the compensation granted by the

Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of

amenities' and other heads are on the lower side.

7

Fourthly, due to the accident the claimant has

undergone surgery and the doctor has deposed that the

claimant requires Rs.1,50,000/- towards 'future medical

expenses'. But the Tribunal has not considered the same.

Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

7.

On the other hand, Sri H.N.Keshava Prashanth

and

Sri

O.Mahesh,

l