THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1039/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,48,359/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The Insurance Company filed this Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 22.04.2021 passed in MVC No. 1039 of 2017 by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur.

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

3. On 12.06.2017, at about 15:15 hours the claimant was returning to his native after offering pooja at Basavanna temple at Nandigudi as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA.27/EC-8422 and when the motorcycle came near the spot of accident, one Trax bearing Reg No. KA-17/C-7095 came from opposite side in the rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the claimant sustained the grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the offending vehicle was insured with insurance company as of the date of the accident and hence, the company would be liable in case of any liability. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The insurance company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective licence as of the date of the accident and there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

6. The tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The claimant to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2 and marked 119 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. In rebuttal, the owner of the offending vehicle was examined as RW1 and marked 4 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

8. The tribunal, after recording the evidence of the parties, and after appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 22.04.2021 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,48,359/- to the claimant along with the interest at the rate of 7% p.a from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment and held that the respondent No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest.

9. The insurance company aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, preferred this miscellaneous first appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company.

11. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the doctor examined by the claimant is a non treated doctor. He submits that the doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 46.1% to the particular limb but the tribunal has assessed the disability at 25%, which is on the lower side. He submits that the interest awarded by the tribunal is also on the higher side. Accordingly, on these grounds he prays to allow the miscellaneous first appeal.

12. Though, the notice was issued to the respondents, they remained unrepresented before this court.

13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

14