The main legal point established is the re-assessment of compensation and contributory negligence based on re-evaluation of evidence and application of traffic rules.

JUDGMENT :

K. Somashekar, J.

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.01.2013 rendered by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl.MACT, Kundapura in MVC No.622/2011.

The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

3. It is evident in the claim petition that on 12.02.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. when the petitioner was traveling as a Rider in T.V.S. Scooter bearing Regn.KA 20-X/3518, the driver of the Ford Icon Car bearing Regn.No.KA-20-N/875 driven by the first respondent came from Bidkalkatte side in a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter of the petitioner and caused accident near Haladi Junction, Kundapura Taluk. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, he was taken to NRAM Hospital, Koteshwara, and he took treatment as an inpatient. He has sustained major fracture injuries to his left leg. Prior to injuries he was hale and healthy and was working as Pigmy Collector under Belve Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Haladi Branch and also doing other business and was earning monthly income not less than Rs.12,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and permanent disfiguration. On these grounds, petitioner filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

4. After service of notice, respondents entered appearance through their respective counsel. Second respondent filed written statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Based on pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to substantiate his claim, petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got examined Dr.Vivek K.S. as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P51. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.2,03,600/-. Further, it held that the petitioner has contributed 50% of negligence to the accident and he is entitled for 50% of compensation at Rs.1,01,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also on the question of contributory negligence, the appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal on various amongst other grounds.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering having as against the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant is on lower side and it needs further enhancement. Further, the compensation awarded towards medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, attendant charges and food and nourishment are very much on lower side and the same has to be enhanced. Further, the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,500/- is on lower side whereas the petitioner was working as a Pigmy Collector and had income of Rs.12,000/- per month. The compensation awarded towards the loss of income during treatment is also on lower side as against the nature of injuries and period of treatment taken by the appellant and the same has to be enhanced suitably. Further, the Tribunal erred in not properly assessing the disability factor and has also not appreciated the medical evidence in that regard and awarded very meager compensation towards loss of future earning capacity.

7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal without any reasons and without verifying the supported documents has fixed the contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on behalf of