The court's decision emphasized the importance of accurately assessing the claimant's income, disability, and impact of injuries to determine fair compensation in road traffic accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 2/7/2011 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1300/2009.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24/1/2009 at about 03.00 a.m., the claimant was traveling in a Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-Z-336 on NH-4 road near Basavanatha gate Kolar Bye pass road, Kolar town, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP- 27-X-5659 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex- parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Alwin was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle 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.3,56,660.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimant is Income Tax Assessee and he has produced IT Returns for the period of 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal has not considered the same and has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,000.00 per month.

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered whole body disability at 20%. But the Tribunal has not assessed any disability and has not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income due to disability'.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 17 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

Firstly, the Tribunal considering the documents produced by the claimant and considering the injuries suffered by the claimant has rightly considered the notional income of the claiman