Point of Law : In a case of more than 31% disability, future prospects has to be added. Hence, if future prospects at 40% is added, the income of the claimant comes to Rs.28,000/-per month. [Para 25]

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company the and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 20.06.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.596/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning allowing of the claim petition and awarding compensation.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 23.05.2009, the petitioner and his brother were proceeding in the motorcycle and auto rickshaw which came from Iruvali side in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the injured sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was taken to Alva’s Hospital, Moodabidri and after first aid treatment, shifted to A.J. Hospital, Mangalore and was admitted as an inpatient from 23.05.2009 to 17.07.2009 and again admitted to Mangala Hospital, Mangalore from 02.06.2010 to 04.06.2010 and in Manjunatha Hospital, Kundapura from 14.06.2011 to 15.06.2011 and in Mangala Hospital, Mangalore from 15.06.2013 to 16.06.2013. Thus, he spent an amount of Rs.5,24,139.37 towards medical expenses.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement denying the contention of the claimant and contended that the respondent No.1 also colluded with the police to file a false claim.

6. The claimant, in support of his claim, examined his father as P.W.1, Medical Officer as P.W.2 and the Doctor, who assessed the disability as P.W.3. and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P260. The respondent No.2 examined the driver of the auto rickshaw as R.W.1, the brother of the claimant as R.W.2 and Police Officer as R.W.3, who conducted the investigation.

7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded the compensation of Rs.11,39,340/-and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that, at the first instance, history was given that the claimant had fallen from the motorcycle. But, the facts of the case is twisted that it was an accident between the motorcycle and the auto rickshaw. With regard to the involvement of the auto rickshaw is concerned, at the first instance, nowhere it is stated and the said fact has not been considered by the Tribunal. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the driver of the auto rickshaw is the neighborer and he also colluded together to get the police records manipulated to implicate the vehicle auto rickshaw. The counsel also would vehemently contend that from the evidence elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, it is clear that damages was on the left side but, the witnesses, who have been examined by the Insurance Company as R.Ws.1 to 3 speak that damages are caused to right side and the said discrepancy is also not taken note of by the Tribunal. Hence, it requires interference of this Court since, it is a case of fraud by implicating the vehicle of auto rickshaw.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-claimant would vehemently contend that the history is given that he had fallen from motorcycle and though he had not mentioned that auto rickshaw involved in the accident, it is the case of the claimant that the accident occurred between the motorcycle and the auto rickshaw and he had fallen from motorcycle. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Insurance Company also not proved the fact that vehicle was not involved in the accident and the claimant has falsely implicated the auto rickshaw. The counsel also would submit that the driver of the auto rickshaw and the brother of the cl