The court can modify compensation amounts awarded by a tribunal if deemed insufficient based on the evidence and assessment of injury severity.

ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the petitioners challenging the common judgment and award dated 26.06.2013 passed in MVCs No.439/2011, 443/2011 and 437/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VIII, Badami (‘Tribunal’ for short).

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

2.1. The petitioners, on 21.02.2010, in order to go to Hangargi on their work, they were standing near the road. At that time, an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/5623 came there. All the petitioners boarded into the auto-rickshaw. The driver of the auto- rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost his control over it and the auto-rickshaw fell down and turned turtle. As a result, the petitioners have sustained the injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

3. Notice was issued by the Tribunal to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of notice, he remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte.

4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal clubbed the claim petitions and framed the separate issues.

6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, the guardian of the petitioner in MVC No.439/2011, petitioner in MVC No.437/2011 and petitioner in MVC No.443/2011 were examined as PWs-1 to 3, they examined the Doctor as PW-4 and marked 32 documents as Exs.P1 to P32. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined its Officer as RW-1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded the compensations of Rs.30,000/- in MVC No.439/2011, Rs.5,000/- in MVC No.437/2011 and Rs.10,500/- in MVC No.443/2011. The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

8. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal, filed these appeals.

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

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award and contended that, the compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper. Hence, she prays to dismiss the appeals.

12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.

13. There is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and the petitioners having sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioners, in order to prove their disabilities, examine the Doctor as PW-4. From the perusal of wound certificates marked as Exs.P8, P21 and P30, disclose that the injuries sustained by the petitioners are simple in nature. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioners, has awarded the global compensation amounts. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation amounts awarded by