1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in M.V.C. No. 565 of 2011 dated 6.3.2012 on the file of the Principal, M.A.C.T. and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

2. M.F.A. No. 1049 of 2013 is filed by claimant Devaraju T. seeking enhancement of compensation. The connected appeal M.F.A. No. 6922 of 2012 is filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging not only the liability but also quantum of compensation.

3. M.V.C. No. 565 of 2011 was filed by the claimant seeking compensation on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.12.2010. According to him he was riding a Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 06 - EC 5429 on NH 4 Tumkur - Bangalore Highway. The lorry bearing registration No. TN 34 - K 5621 was parked by the side of the road without any signal or indicator. Since the parked lorry was not visible, the motor cycle ridden by the claimant dashed against the lorry on the rear side causing grievous injuries to him. Immediately, he was admitted in Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala. Thereafter, he was shifted to Nimhans and later to Narayana Nethralaya. According to him he had spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. He has claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000.

4. The respondent insurance company has filed its written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below has framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.12.2010 at about 5.30 a.m., near Deluxe Petrol Station, on NH 4, Bangalore - Tumkur Highway on account of rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No. TN 34 - K 5621?
(2) Whether the insurer proves that the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 34 - K 5621 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident?
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
(4) What order?"

5. The claimant got himself examined as PW 1, Dr. Murthiunjaya T.D., Orthopaedic Surgeon of Harsha Hospital was examined as PW 2. Dr. Elvis Rodrigues, Assistant Professor, Neurosurgeon, BMCRI was examined as PW 3. A witness, by name K.H. Manjunath, was examined as PW 4. Documents, Exhs. P1 to P28, were marked in their evidence. The respondents have not let in any evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the court below has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,98,838 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle submits that the court below was not right in fastening the entire liability on the insurer of the lorry. It is argued that the lorry was parked on the left side of the highway without any signal. However, the claimant who was riding the motor cycle should have been vigilant. He should have noticed the parked lorry. There was enough space for him to avoid the accident, if he was vigilant. The court below ought to have apportioned the liability by holding that the claimant was also negligent to some extent.

8. Alternatively it is contended that the compensation awarded by the court below is excessive. The court below is not justified in holding that the claimant had sustained 60 per cent permanent disability to the whole body. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.75,000 is on a higher side. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
(1) Raj Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2003 (SC);
(2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Prasad, 2011 ACJ 2642 (Karnataka);
(3) Dr. Bhaktaprahlad v. Nirwani, 2011 ACJ 2787 (Karnataka); and
(4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chennappa Shettigar, 2009 ACJ 2600 (Karnataka).

9. On the other hand, Ms. B. Chandrakala, learned