The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to re-determine the compensation amount based on factors such as income, disability assessment, and the impact of injuries on the claimant's life, in accordance with the principles of compensation calculation.

JUDGMENT

S. Sujatha, J. - The claimant as well as the insurance company are in appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi ['MACT' for short] in MVC No.263/2014 dated 04.08.2015 whereby the MACT has determined the total compensation of Rs.9,25,160/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only] with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit, relating to the road traffic accident, the subject matter of MVC No.263/2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act' for short] by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

2. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act alleging actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle APM bus bearing registration No.KA-20-B- 3337 duly insured with the insurance company Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. It was contended that on 21.09.2013 at about 9.55 a.m., when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-J-3883 from Udupi Samskrit College to City Bus Stand side, near Naghabana of Brindavana Junction Cross, he met with the road traffic accident owing to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries culminating in physical disability for life.

3. In the aforesaid proceedings, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent. The insurance company contested the matter. The MACT after framing the issues and considering the material on record, awarded the total compensation of Rs.9,25,160/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only] with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation amount as awarded and to deposit the same within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.

4. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurance company is challenging the quantum awarded as exorbitant and unreasonable.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the MACT has fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- [Rupees Nine Thousand only] per month in the absence of any supporting documents to establish the income of the claimant as a driver. It was further argued that the doctor PW-3 has assessed the disability at 18% in the right lower limb and 5% in the left lower limb. Considering the same, the whole body disability assessed by the MACT at 12% is on the higher side. Nextly, it was argued that the interest awarded at 8% per annum on the determined compensation amount is excessive.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant has sustained Right Acetabulam Fracture and Left Inferior Public Rami Fracture and was taken treatment as an inpatient from 21.09.2013 to 26.12.2013. The disability certificate shows that he has permanent colostomy. In such circumstances, the compensation awarded towards the pain and sufferings and loss of amenities at Rs.70,000/- [Rupees Seventy Thousand only] and Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] respectively, is too meager. Learned counsel submitted that the monthly income of the claimant determined at Rs.9,000/- [Rupees Nine Thousand only] per month is quite reasonable and the same does not call for any reduction by this Court on the other hand, requires to be enhanced, considering the occupation of the claimant as a driver. As regards the interest aspect also, learned counsel sought for confirmation of the interest awarded at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The challenge made by both the parties on the quantum of compensation awa