However, the National Insurance Company, which was impleaded as number petitioner No.3 companytested the claim by asserting that the accident was number caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and that the appellant was himself responsible for the accident.
After analysing the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo.
He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver Shri Raju that he had suffered serious injuries in the accident that he remained in the hospital for almost one month and a half and had to spend more than Rs.80,000/ towards medical treatment, companyveyance and expenses of the attendants that at the time of accident he was a student of Class 8 and on account of the injuries he was number in a position to companytinue his studies.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short, the Act and claimed companypensation of Rs.3,00,000/ with interest and companyt.
The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, who were impleaded as number petitioners No.1 and 2 did number companytest the claim of the appellant.
1,900/ Diet and attendant charges Rs.30,600/ Loss of future earning on Rs.21,600/ account of disability Decline in the prospects of Rs.50,000/ marriage Total Rs.1,49,440/ The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Act and enhanced the amount of companypensation by a sum of Rs.40,000/ .
The Tribunal then referred to the statements of Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, who issued disability certificate Exhibit P 140 and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology, who issued treatment certificate Exhibit P 141 both the doctors were working in Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal and awarded companypensation to the appellant under the following heads Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/ Medical expenses Rs.20,340/ 3 Transportation Rs.
Two of the four issues framed by the Tribunal were whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and whether the appellant was entitled to companypensation.
The appellant sustained serious injuries on the head, numbere, back and lower region of abdomen including the pelvic region when the tempo in which he was travelling met with an accident on 23.4.2000.
Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of companypensation awarded by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar for short, the Tribunal , the appellant has filed this appeal.
S. Singhvi, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
The appellant has questioned the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that while determining the amount of companypensation, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court overlooked the parameters and principles laid down by this Court and did number take into companysideration the expenses likely to be incurred by him for future treatment and the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
