The court reassessed the compensation awarded to the claimant, emphasizing the inadequacy of the original order given the severity of injuries sustained.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 12.09.2023 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC no.570/2022, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri B.C.Jaka, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted at 6.30 p.m. on 29.11.2020, when claimant along with others was returning to their village by walk, rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.TS-08/FR-5720 rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against pedestrians. In accident, claimant sustained several fractural injuries. Despite taking treatment at Government Hospital, Chandapur, Chincholli and GIMS Hospital, Kalaburagi, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, against owner and insurer of motorcycle.

3. On contest, wherein owner remained absent and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent no.2-insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds.

4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined Doctor Raju Kulkarni as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of respondent-Insurance Company, its official was examined as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider, claimant sustained loss of earning capacity and therefore entitled for compensation. It held insurer liable to pay compensation assessed as follows:

6. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal.

7. It was submitted though claimant sustained several fractural injuries, tribunal awarded meager compensation towards pain and suffering and medical expenses and sought enhancement.

8. On other hand, Smt.Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted tribunal had taken note of facts and circumstances, appreciated them in proper perspective and held claimant entitled for only compensation under pain and suffering and medical expenses. Therefore, award did not call for interference.

9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award, certified copies of deposition and exhibits made available for perusal of this Court by learned counsel for respondent-insurer.

10. From above, it is seen this appeal is by claimant for enhancement of compensation and insurer has not preferred appeal, point that would arise for consideration is:

“Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. Findings of tribunal regarding occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent riding of insured vehicle by its rider, claimant sustaining injuries and insurer being liable to pay compensation are not in dispute.

12. Claim petition was filed alleging that claimant had sustained several fractural injuries i.e., fracture of both hands, amputation of left finger, left hand fracture of pelvis, fracture of left foot, fracture of right leg, fracture of humerus and ulna and grievous injuries over other parts of body. However, Ex.P10- wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, shows nature of injuries as simple. Even Ex.P8-disability certificate issued by PW.2 refers to mal-united fracture of first metacarpal. Though, there is reference to X-rays of hand, pelvis area and left finger in Ex.P11, no fractures were found. It is also seen that PW.2 had assessed upper limb disability at 20% and sought to explain it on account of loss of grip, strength