MFA No.21717/2011 is filed by the insurer challenging the

finding regarding negligence, liability and the quantum of

compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal – IX, Bellary, in MVC No.575/2009.

The claimant has filed MFA No.20551/2011 seeking

enhancement

of

compensation

determined

in

MVC

No.575/2009.

The claimant contended in his claim petition that on

08.03.2009, he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-35/R-8754 along with a pillion rider and were returning

from Kariganur village and proceeding towards Vaddarahalli. At

about 7.30 p.m., when he was proceeding near the over bridge,

he shunted a parked lorry bearing registration No.KA-35/8746

(henceforth referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) and suffered

injuries in the accident. The claimant claimed that the lorry

was parked without switching on the hazard lights and without

taking proper measures to alert the other users of the road.

- 5 -

The claimant was initially examined at Government Hospital,

Hospet and thereafter at Government Hospital, Bellary and

since the claimant had suffered head injury, he was referred to

NIMHANS, Bengaluru for higher treatment.

Based on these contentions, the claimant filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the

offending vehicle.

The insurer of the offending vehicle contested the

claim petition claiming that it was the claimant who was

negligent and who was driving the motorcycle at breakneck

speed. It contended that it was he who was responsible for the

accident and therefore, it was not liable to pay any

compensation.

6.

The owner of the offending vehicle and the driver

filed a common statement of objections contending that since

the vehicle had broken down, they had parked it on the

National Highway – 63 near the over bridge on the extreme left

side of the road and that the claimant carelessly banged

- 6 -

against the parked lorry. They claimed that many other

vehicles had passed through the road, while it was the claimant

who was negligent and who banged against the parked vehicle.

7.

Based on these rival contentions, the claim petition

was set down for trial. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and

he marked Exs.P1 to P18. The insurer of the motorcycle

examined one of its officials as RW.1 and marked Ex.R1. The

driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.2, who

marked Exs.R1 to R5. The insurer of the offending vehicle

examined one witness as RW.3.

8.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was parked on the

National Highway – 63 without switching on the hazard lights

and without giving proper indication to the other users of the

road that the vehicle was parked on the road. It therefore,

held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of

the driver of the offending vehicle. In so far as quantum of

compensation is concerned, it held that the wound certificate

disclosed extra dural hemorrhage in left frontal region of the

head and contusion in left shoulder and bleeding from left ear.

- 7 -

It held that there was a fracture on the left EDH parietal bone.

In the absence of any evidence of a medical professional, to

assess the disability of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded the

following compensation:-

Sl.No.

Heads

Amount

Towards Pain and sufferings

Rs. 35,000/-

Towards Medical expenses

Rs. 5,000/-

Towards attendant charges

Rs. 3,000/-

Towards

nursing

and

nourishment charges

Rs. 3,000/-

Loss

of

earning

during

the

treatment period

Rs. 6,000/-

6.

Towards loss of future earnings

Rs. 51,840/-

7.

Towards loss of amenities

Rs. 3,000/-

8.

Towards conveyance charges

Rs. 5,000/-

Total

Rs. 1,11,840/-

9.

As regards liability of the insurer of the offending

vehicle, it held that the vehicle in question was covered by a

policy of insurance for the period from 28.11.2009 to

27.11.2010. It held that the