Compensation for personal injury claims should be assessed comprehensively, considering all aspects such as pain, suffering, permanent disability, and loss of income.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.08.2019 passed in M.V.C.4323/2017 by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, and Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru. By filing this appeal, the appellant seeks to enhance the compensation so awarded by the tribunal.

The factual matrix:

2. It was the case of the petitioner before the tribunal that, on 15.12.2016 at about 8.30 a.m., when he was moving on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 53-S-7646 from Muthkur towards Varthur, near Muthusandra Lake, the driver of TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-53-A-7981 by driving his Car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle. Because of this impact, petitioner fell down and sustained subtrochanteric fracture right femur, distal 1/3 shaft fracture right femur, open wound over right leg and COPD with acute exacerbation. He was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru and took treatment in the said hospital as inpatient from 15.12.2016 to 24.12.2016 and underwent closed reduction and recon nailing right femur, wound debridement and CLW suturing right leg on 16.12.2016. Further, he also underwent inferior based gastronomies flap with SSG right leg on 19.12.2016. Thus, he alleged that, he has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and medical expenses.

3. It is his further case that, when the accident took place, he was 60 years old and was working as a mason under various civil contractors and was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. Now he has been disabled because of these injuries and has sustained permanent disability because of these accidental injuries. Both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation and hence prayed to award the compensation as prayed.

4. Before the tribunal, respondent No.1 was placed ex-parte, as he remained absent before the Court, despite service of notice. Respondent No.2 appeared through his panel counsel and opposed the petition by filing detailed objection statement, denying entire assertions and allegations made in the petition. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations with regard to the nature of the accident, profession, injury sustained by him, so called medical expenses spent by him, and disability etc., So far as the issuance of the policy and its validity on the date of accident is concerned, it is admitted. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned tribunal based upon the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues. The petitioner himself entered the witness box as PW.1 to substantiate his claim and also examined Dr. Chethan A., as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, closed his evidence.

6. An official of respondent No.2 by name Thrinethra M.N., entered the witness as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. Closed respondent No.2's evidence.

7. The learned tribunal on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-53-A- 7981 owned by respondent No.1 and driven by its driver.

This finding of the tribunal is not challenged by respondent No.2. Thus, the finding on issue No.1 has attained finality.

8. With regard to the award of compensation, the learned tribunal in para-17 awarded total compensation of Rs.5,20,200/- under the following heads.: