Court reassessed disability and compensation under MV Act, enhancing total award based on established injuries and future earning capacity.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 16.11.2013 in M.V.C.No.1161/2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge cum Member, VI M.A.C.T., Kudligi.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

2.1. On 25.04.2011, the petitioner, along with his friend, was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/J- 5741 from Ambali to go to Hospet, on NH-13 road. At that time, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.TN-28/AF-3093 came from the Hospet en route M.M. Halli, at a great speed and was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner fell down left side of the road and the right wheel of the tractor ran over the right leg of the petitioner and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

2.2. In the said accident, the friend of the petitioner was also sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased also filed the claim petitioner in M.V.C. No.617/2011. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together.

3. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle appeared through the counsel however, did not file a statement of objections.

4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions. Based on the pleadings of the parties, framed separate issues and recorded the common evidence.

6. Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.617/2011 was examined as PW-1, the petitioner in M.V.C. No.1161/2012 was examined himself as PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked the 22 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-22. Conversely, the respondents before the tribunal neither led any oral nor documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 16.11.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,07,400/- and directed the owner and Insurance Company to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed this appeal.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 76%. He submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is unable to do any agricultural activities after the accident. He also submits that before the accident, he was hale and healthy. He further submits that the petitioner has examined the doctor as PW-3, who opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 76% to the lower limb and he has issued a disability certificate as per Ex.P-12. He submits that the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 30% which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the