This appeal is directed against the award and

judgment

passed

in

No.136/2017

dated

19.06.2017 on the file of the XI Addl. District and

Sessions Judge and MACT, Belagavi.

2.

We refer the parties as per their ranks before the

Trial Court.

3.

It is the case of appellant/petitioner that he met

with an accident by involvement of the vehicle bearing

No.KA-23/ED-8584 on 12.04.2006 at 10 p.m. on

Halekadrolli to Itagi road near Kadrolli village. Due to

the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and

accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving

of the above said vehicle. With these reasons he

prayed to award compensation of Rs.21,00,000/-

under different heads.

4

4.

Respondent No.2 has denied the contentions of

the appellant. It is further contended that petition

was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Owner

and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.KA-24/U-3521

were necessary parties. Liability of respondent No.2

was restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of

insurance, with these reasons prayed to dismiss the

petition.

5.

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

Trial Court framed the following issues:

1.

Whether the petitioner proves that on

12.04.2016 at 10.00 p.m. on Kadrolli-Itagi

road, within the limits of Kadrolli village,

taluka

Bailhongal,

petitioner

sustained

injuries due to rash or negligent riding of

vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-23/ED-8584?

2.

Whether the petition is barred for non-

joinder of owner and insurer of motorcycle

bearing No.KA-24/U-3521?

5

3.

Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the

petitioner contributed to the accident and

caused it due to rash or negligent riding of

motor cycle bearing No.KA-24/U-3521?

4.

Whether

the

petitioner

is

entitled

for

compensation? If so, at what amount and

from whom.

5.

What order or award?

6.

Appellant/petitioner examined PW.1 and 2 and

got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 and closed his evidence.

Respondent No.2 has not led oral evidence but

marked policy of insurance as the Ex.R1.

7.

Learned trial judge appreciating the proceedings

and evidence of both the parties answered issue No.1

in the affirmative, 2 and 3 in the negative and issue

No.4 partly in the affirmative and awarded total

compensation of Rs.4,63,200/- under different heads

by impugned judgment.

6

8.

Following point emerges for our determination.

1) Whether

interference

in

the

findings

of

learned trial judge is called for?

Answer: Partly in the affirmative for the

following reasons:-

9.

Fact of accident is not in dispute. The appellant

challenged impugned judgment pertaining to quantum

of compensation. The learned advocate for appellant

vehemently contends that as per evidence of PW.2,

the total disability was 45% to the right lower limb but

the learned trial judge has erroneously taken the

disability as 15%, which caused injustice to appellant.

The learned advocate for respondent No.2 supported

the finding of the impugned judgment and submits

that the percentage of disability stated by PW.2 was

only to the right lower limb and if it considered to

whole body, it shall be 1/3^rd. Accordingly, the learned

7

trial Judge relying on the judgment in the case of

Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar and another reported in

2011 ACJ 1 SC, calculated the disability. There is no

illegality in the said finding.

10.

The

submission

of

learned

advocate

for

respondent

No.2

is

tenable.

In

the

impugned

judgment at para No.17, the learned trial judge has

discussed in-detail about the said fact and rightly

came to conclusion that the total disability of the

petitioner to the whole body was 15%. Hence, it does

not call for any interference.

11.

Learned advocate for appellant contended that

appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and it

was not considered by the Trial Court. The said

contention is not acceptable since there was no

evidence in this regard, before the Trial Court. On the

basis of guess work, as discussed in para No.16 of

8

impugned judgment the learned trial Judge assessed

the income of appellant