The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment and modification of compensation under different categories in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT

H T Narendra Prasad, J. - This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 02.05.2014 in between 5.00 6.00 p.m. claimant was standing by the side of Bengaluru Mangalore National highway in front of Venkateshwara Kalayanamantapa at Yediyur. At that time, the driver of Icon Ford car bearing registration No.KA-06/C-747 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that at the of the accident claimant was aged 34 years and doing agriculture and also business and earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. It was further pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he had suffered permanent disability and he became unemployed. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied except admitting that at the time of the accident the car in question was having insurance coverage. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the car and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 even though served did not appear and hence, he was placed ex-parte.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant was examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The respondents did not adduce any evidence, but got exhibited the document as Ex.R1. The claimant also examined CW-1 Dr.Prasad and got exhibited documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 12,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that at the time of the accident claimant was aged about 34 years and he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and bamboo business, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs. 8,000/- per month. Secondly, due to the accident claimant had suffered grievous injuries and his right leg above knee was amputated and he has also suffered fracture of left femur. Dr.Prasad who was examined as CW-1 has stated that the claimant is having 100% impairment of lower limb and he cannot do his regular work and the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 35% is on the lower side. Thirdly, claimant has produced Exs.P7, P8, P13 and P14 as medical bills. Even though claimant claims that he claimed Rs. 2,14,376/- as medical expenses, the Tribunal has granted only a meager sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income as Rs. 8,000/- per month. Secondly, there is a clear finding of the Tribunal that there is no loss of income to the claimant due to disability. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in granting additional 50%