AWARD

DATED

29.10.2015

PASSED IN MVC No.2814/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II

ADDITIONAL

SENIOR

CIVIL

JUDGE

MEMBER,

ADDITIONAL

MOTOR

ACCIDENT

CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL,

2

BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

COMPENSATION

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT

OF

COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.No.101670/2016

BETWEEM

SMT. BHARATI W/O BASAVARAJ BOGAR,

AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BANGLES BUSINESS,

JUDGMENT

AWARD

DATED

29.10.2015

PASSED IN MVC No.2812/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II

ADDITIONAL

SENIOR

CIVIL

JUDGE

MEMBER,

ADDITIONAL

MOTOR

ACCIDENT

CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL,

BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

COMPENSATION

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT

OF

COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

J U D G M E N T

The

claimants

in

M.V.C.Nos.2814/2013

and

2812/2013 being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Additional M.A.C.T.,

Belagavi vide its judgment and award dated 29^th

October 2015 have preferred these appeals.

2.

Though

these

appeals

are

listed

for

admission, with the consent of the learned counsels

appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final

disposal.

3.

The parties to this appeal are referred to by

their rankings before the Tribunal for the sake of

convenience.

4.

The undisputed facts of the case are that, on

04.03.2013

the

claimants

were

proceeding

in

an

autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-15/3743 from

Shikaripur

to

Kalenhalli

and

when

the

said

autorickshaw

reached

near

Kalenhalli

cross,

the

offending

school

bus

bearing

registration

No.KA-

15/8279 which was driven in a rash and negligent

4

manner by its driver dashed against the autorickshaw

and caused the accident. In the said accident, the

claimants

were

grievously

injured

and

they

were

treated in Nanjappa Hospigtal, Shimoga as inpatient.

It is under these circumstances, claim petitions were

filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in

M.V.C.Nos.2814/2013

and

2812/2013,

which

were

partly allowed by the Tribunal awarding compensation

of

`60,920/-

and

`78,960/-

respectively

to

the

claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants

are before this court.

5.

Learned

counsel

for

the

claimants

has

submitted that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal in both cases is on the lower side and

accordingly prays to enhance the same. However,

learned counsel for the insurer has supported the

impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

and submits that the compensation awarded is just and

proper and accordingly prays to dismiss the appeals.

5

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and also perused

the material available on record.

7.

The

only

question

that

arises

for

consideration in these appeals is with regard to the

adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to

the claimants, having regard to the injuries suffered

and the treatment undergone for the same by them.

8. The claimant in M.V.C.No.2814/2013 was

aged about 60 years as on the date of accident. His

notional income is required to be taken at `7,000/-

per month, having regard to the income chart

maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority for the purpose of disposal of the motor

vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalat. The

claimant had suffered the following injuries in the

accident in question:

1) Compound fracture and dislocation of

right wrist;

6

2) Fracture of right radius and fracture of

ulna bone of right wrist and forearm;

3) Fracture of medial malleolus of the

lower end of the right tibia bone of the

right ankle joint and

4) Fracture of lateral malleolus of the

lower end of the right fibula bone of the

right ankle joint.

The Doctor, who had treated him, was examined as

PW-3 and he has deposed that the physical disability

caused to the claimant is to the extent of 25% to the

particular limb. The Tribunal has assessed the whole

body

disability

at

8%.

The

proper

multiplier

applicable having regard to the age of the injured

claima