The main legal point established is the court's authority to enhance compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the nature of injuries and the claimant's future earning capacity.

JUDGMENT

H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned XIV Addl.Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Tribunal'), by judgment and award dated 8.10.2012, passed in MVC No.2482/2011.

2. The summary of the case of the claimant in the Tribunal is that on 11.3.2011, at about 6.00 p.m., when he was riding his Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-EC-2770, on Hegganahalli-Kundana Road, near Sunrise Farm, towards Bettenahalli, a car bearing registration No.KA-04-B-4367 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and dashed to the claimant's vehicle, due to which road traffic accident, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The Scooter which he was riding also got completely damaged. It is the further case of the claimant that he was taken to Deeksha Hospital, Yelahanka, Bangalore, and after first-aid treatment there, he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. The claimant says that he had spent Rs.1 lakh towards medical expenses. He alleges that the road traffic accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. In that connection, a police complaint was also lodged with the Vishwanathapura Traffic Police in Crime No.22/2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The claimant has stated that due to injuries, he has suffered permanent disability and is unable to eke out his livelihood. The claimant has further stated that his income at Rs.15,000/- per month as a Mason has totally come to a halt. With this, he has claimed for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.

3. After analysing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.

4. The appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by him, has prayed for allowing the appeal.

5. Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant is physically present before the Court and submitted his arguments. Learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company is appearing through Video Conference and he also submitted his arguments.

7. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in his arguments submitted that even as per Lok Adalat, the notional income for a Mason at the relevant point of time is Rs.6,500/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has committed an error by fixing the income of the injured only at Rs.4,000/- per month, as such, the same requires enhancement. He also stated that the Tribunal has analysed the fact that the claimant has sustained multiple compound fractures to bo