The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the assessment of injuries and treatment undergone by the claimants.

JUDGMENT

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the M.A.C.T., Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC Nos. 698/2014, 699/2014, 700/2014, 701/2014, 702/2014 & 703/2014, vide judgment and award dated 26.09.2015.

2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the same are taken up for final disposal.

3. The parties to these appeals are referred to by their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these cases are;

On 07.11.2013, the claimants were proceeding in a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. KA-17/F-1277 towards Dharmastala and when the bus reached near Nidigal of Kalmanja village in Belthangadi taluk, the driver of the bus, who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the same and dashed against a tree on the side of the road and caused the accident. In the said accident, the claimants suffered grievous injuries and they were admitted in a private hospital for treatment. It is under this background, they had filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal, which were partly allowed by the Tribunal. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the cases are on the lower side. The notional income of the claimants has been taken on the lower side, which has resulted in awarding meager compensation. Accordingly she prays to enhance the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference and prays to dismiss the appeals.

7. I have carefully considered the rival arguments and also perused the material on record.

8. The only question that arises for consideration in all these appeals is with regard to the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal, having regard to the injuries sustained by them and the treatment undergone for the same.

9. In MFA No. 101703/2016 (MVC No. 698/2014), the claimant was aged about 27 years and he had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula bones. The doctor, who had assessed the disability, had deposed before the Tribunal that the disability to the particular limbs in all was at 40%. The Tribunal had assessed the whole body disability at 8%. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month. In view of the income chart maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the purpose of disposing of the motor vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalath, the notional income ought to have been taken at Rs. 7,000/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant would be 17. In the said event, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,14,240/- (Rs. 7000 x 12 x 17 x 8%) towards 'loss of future income due to disability', as against Rs. 81,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'pain and suffering', the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs. 32,300/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses', the claimant is entitled for sum of Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of income during laid-up period', the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities and enjoyment in life', the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribuna