The court held that compensation should be enhanced when medical evidence (wound certificates and discharge summaries) proves grievous injuries that were not sufficiently accounted for in the Tribunal's initial award.

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2021, IN M.V.C NO.198/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HONNAVAR AND ETC.,.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 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. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.09.2021 passed in MVC No.198 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, JMFC and Additional MACT, Honnavar, the Tribunal

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

3. On 17.11.2017, the claimant in MVC No.200 of 2018 was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-47/Q-5643. The appellant/claimant herein was a pillion rider. When they reached near the spot of accident, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11/F-0445 came in a rash and negligent manner, overtaking another vehicle, and dashed against the motorcycle.

4. As a result, the claimants in both the claim petitions fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petiton.

5. The respondent-KSRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together and a common statement of objections was filed by the respondents. The Tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed separate issues.

8. The claimants to prove their case, examined the present appellant as PW-1 and the claimant/petitioner in M.V.C.No.200/2018 as PW-2. Common evidence was recorded and 39 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P39. In rebuttal, the driver was examined as RW-1 and three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3.

9. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide Judgment dated 08.09.2021 and awarded compensation of ₹65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the Tribunal.

10. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal.

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the respondents.

12. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability and has produced the wound certificate. The Tribunal, without properly considering the wound certificate marked as Ex.P3, has awarded compensation of ₹65,000/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the KSRTC submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and do not call for any interference by this Court. He