M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE Vs. GIRISHA K.S., S/O SWAMY GOWDA @ MUNDSWAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer as well as claimant are before this court challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore, ['the Tribunal', for short] in MVC No. 1086/2010.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.3.2009. It was alleged that the said accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the rider of the vehicle bearing No. KA-05/HD 5326 while the claimant was riding the said vehicle as a pillion. The insurer of the offending vehicle entered appearance and contested the claim. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,66,20/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the insurer is m appeal challenging the impugned Judgment and award on liability as well as quantum, whereas the claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation as the same is inadequate.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer assailing the impugned Judgment and award would contend that as per the wound certificate at Ex.P4, it is clearly mentioned that the claimant was shifted to the hospital with CTC Ambulance from the accident spot and was accompanied by his family members, history is mentioned as Injuries said to have occurred on 10.3.2009 due to rider of two wheeler found lying on the road'. Placing much emphasis on this document, learned counsel contends that the claimant himself was the rider of the two wheeler and suffered injuries. It is further submitted that Ex.R2, the police intimation given by the BGS Hospital clearly reflects that the patient was travelling on two wheeler, found lying on the road. The same being reflected at Ex.R-3, Medico-legal register of the BGS Hospital, the Tribunal ought to have considered these documents to appreciate the defence of the insurer that the claimant was the rider of the motorcycle and in order to claim compensation, projected himself as the pillion rider. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the delay caused in lodging the complaint. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded, it is contended that disability assessed by the Tribunal at 30% is on higher side, not in consonance with the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is, thus, contended that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse, much against the material evidence made available on record.