Court revised compensation due to inadequate initial award for severe injuries, establishing new liability distribution among parties.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.678/2019 dated 08.11.2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Davanagere, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation and also questioning the apportionment of liability on the owner of the car as well as on the insurance company. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 29.09.2018 at about 04.30 p.m. he was going on the motorcycle of his relative as a pillion rider, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in a high speed and dashed the car bearing Reg.No.KA-64-A-0999 going towards Mamas Joint road in a rash and negligent manner. Due to that, the claimant and his relative, who was the rider, fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, on the aspect of liability has held that admittedly, respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the owner & insurer of the motorcycle; respondent No.1 is the rider of the motorcycle and respondent No.4 is the driver of the car and respondent No.5 is the owner of the car. It is an admitted fact that the car was not insured at the time of accident. By applying the principles of master and servant, the case against the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the car is liable to be dismissed. Then, respondent No.2, the owner of the motorcycle, respondent No.3, the insurer of the motorcycle and respondent No.5, the owner of the car, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. But when it come to paragraph 30 of the judgment, the Tribunal observes that, neither the owner of the motorcycle nor the owner of the car, have challenged the charge sheet and as per the charge sheet, due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider and car driver, the accident has occurred, as such, the Court deemed fit that respondent No.3 & 5 i.e., insurer of motorcycle and owner of the car respectively, are liable to pay compensation awarded to the claimant in equal ratio of 50% and accordingly answered the issue. The Tribunal has granted the compensation as per the table given below:

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

claimant submits that when the Tribunal had already given a finding that respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation; again in the next paragraph stating that respondent Nos.3 & 5 have to pay 50% compensation each, is not a correct finding. It is submitted that when they are joint tort-feasors, it is for the claimant to recover the amount and Court cannot fix such a liability at 50:50. It is submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal insofar as this issue is concerned needs to be interfered by this Court.

5. Then when it comes to the compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the claimant had sustained a fracture of the femur. The Tribunal had granted only Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings. It is submitted that for the loss of income during the laid-up period only an amount of Rs.4,587/- is awarded. It is submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads is on the lo