These two appeals arise out of a Judgment passed in MVC

No.7635/2012 dated 5.11.2013 by the 13th Additional Small Cause

4

Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) (hereinafter

referred to as `MACT').

2. Parties to these appeals are referred to as per their ranks

before the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience.

3. The appellant in MFA No.10623/2013 has challenged the

award on the point of negligence, the quantum and liability of the

Insurer. Whereas, the claimant has preferred MFA No.2840/2014

challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded.

4. The brief facts so made out by the petitioner before the

MACT are as under:

That, on 9.10.2012 at about 6.15 a.m. when petitioner was

proceeding on his motorbike bearing Regn.No.KA-01-EE-814 on

Dodda Kannanahalli Main Road on the left side of the road, near

VKC Developers Office, water tanker bearing Regn.KA-03-B-6106

being driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against him. Thereby, he sustained severe

injuries. To that effect, a complaint came to be filed before Airport

Traffic Police Station as per Ex.P1 in Crime No.107/2012 for the

5

offences punishable under Sec.279 and 337 of IPC. After

investigation to that effect, charge sheet came to be filed against

the driver of Tanker Lorry No.KA.03/B-6106 for the aforesaid

offences. At the relevant time, respondent no.1 was the owner of

the said offending vehicle and respondent no.2 was the Insurer

respectively.

5. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on

all counts because of actionable negligence on the part of the

driver of the water tank. He further claimed that in the said

accident, he suffered grievous injuries which lead to his permanent

disability and loss of his earning capacity.

6. Both respondents appeared before the MACT and denied

the case of the petitioner attributing negligence to the petitioner

himself. The policy on the date of accident in respect of the

offending vehicle was admitted. However, it was contended that

liability of the insurer is subject to the terms and conditions of the

policy. They further disputed age, occupation and income of the

claimant and their liability to pay the compensation.

6

7. Based upon the rival pleadings, the learned MACT framed

the relevant issues.

8. To substantiate the case of the claimant, he was examined

as PW.1 and also examined Dr.Bhushan Joseph as PW.2 and got

marked Ex.P1 to P14 and closed his evidence. Respondents have

not lead any evidence.

9. The learned MACT, after hearing the arguments, by the

impugned award granted Rs.25,38,700/- as compensation together

with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization and directed respondent No.2 to indemnify the same.

The MACT awarded the compensation on different heads as per the

table below:

Head

Amount( ````.)

Pain and suffering

1,50,000/-

Medical Expenses

5,16,500/-

Loss of Income during the laid up period

with attendant charges

30,000/-

Diet, conveyance, nourishment, food and

other charges

30,000/-

Loss of future income

(4,500 x 12 x 75/100 x 16)

6,48,000/-

Loss of Amenities & comfort

1,00,000/-

For permanent disability

1,00,000/-

Attendant Charges

(4,500 x 12 x 16)

8,64,000/-

Loss of marriage prospects

1,00,000/-

TOTAL

25,38,700/-

7

10. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer

submits that, the MACT erred in considering the permanent

disability to the extent of 75%. He further submits that, the

compensation awarded on all the heads is also on the higher side.

He further submits that, the said accident has taken place because

of negligence on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the MACT is

not right in fixing the liability on the Insurer.

11. As against this, Sri K.V.Naik, learned counsel appearing

for the claimant submits that, claimant has suffered 100%

disability, the income of the petitioner-claimant is not