The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation in motor accident claims based on the nature of injuries, medical expenses, loss of income, and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenging the judgment and award dtd. 5/12/2018 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Court and Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), in MVC No.1051/2017, this appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts as stated are that on 6/11/2016 at about 10.45 p.m., claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.no.KA-13-EB-2663, on Hassan - Belur Road. He sustained grievous injuries when driver of Maruti Swift Car bearing Reg. No.TN-38-BV-8489, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant's motor cycle, near Hosur Village. He was admitted to Government Hospital at Hassan and thereafter, to Kanchuru Hospital, Mangalore. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability and consequent reduction in earning capacity. Claiming compensation for the same, he filed claim petition against owner and injurer of Maruti Swift Car under Sec. 166 of MV Act.

3. On service of notice, respondent No.2 - Insurer opposed claim petition on all counts.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injury on 6/11/2016 at about 10.45 p.m. at Hosuru Village, Hassan - Belur Road, it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Swift Car bearing No.TN.38.BV.8489?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom?

3. What order or award?

5. In support of claim petition, claimant examined himself as PW1 and one witness as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked. On the other hand, respondent no.2 neither adduced any evidence nor produced any documents.

6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative; issues no.2 and 3 partly in affirmative by allowing claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,88,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum, against owner and insurer. The Tribunal framed issues and held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, that car was insured with 2nd respondent and its driver was having valid driving licence on date of accident. The Tribunal determined age of claimant as 30 years, his monthly income as Rs.9,000.00 notionally and functional disability, referring to evidence of P.W.2 - Dr. Sreeranga N. at 12% and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,88,000.00. Not satisfied with award, claimant is in appeal.

7. Sri. Narendra Gowda, learned counsel appearing for appellant - claimant submitted that impugned award passed by Tribunal was not commensurate to facts of the case and evidence on record. It was submitted that claimant sustained fracture of right femur as well as fracture of right forearm and right talus and metatarsals etc., as indicated in Ex.P.3 - Wound Certificate. However, Tribunal awarded a meager compensation of Rs.40,000.00 towards pain and suffering. It was further submitted that claimant took treatment as inpatient for total period of 99 days. However, Tribunal awarded meager compensation of Rs.20,000.00 towards conveyance charges, Rs.20,150.00 towards nourishment charges, which was grossly inadequate. It was further submitted that despite evidence of P.W.2 regarding requirement of one more operation for removal of implants, Tribunal did not award any compensation towards future medical expenses and also did not award any compensation towards loss of amenities. It was further submitted that though accident occurred during year 2016 and claimant was driver by profession, Tribunal determined his monthly income at meager sum of Rs.9,000.00, which required enhancement.

8. On the other hand, Sri.H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 - Insurer, supported the award and opposed enhancement. It was submitted that though claimant stated that he was a driver, he failed to substantiate the same. He also failed to produce driving licence. Therefore, on overall consideration, compensation awarded, taking his