The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the claimant's disability at 100% and the modification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

1. The claimant in M.V.C. No.110/2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari (for short 'the Tribunal'), is assailing the judgment and award dtd. 20/2/2020 and is seeking enhancement of the compensation being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Since the date of accident and liability of the insurer is not in dispute, detailed reference to the facts of the case is not required. The Tribunal awarded the compensation under the following heads:

The Tribunal has also awarded interest on the compensation at the rate of 7% per annum.

3. The claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in taking Rs.9,000.00 as monthly income as against the claim of Rs.20,000.00 per month made by the claimant. The records would indicate that the claimant did not produce any document to prove his income of Rs.20,000.00 per month as claimed. In the absence of income, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of Rs.9,000.00 per month as the accident occurred in the year 2019. This Court does not find any fault with the notional income assessed by the Tribunal. However, it is noticed that the Tribunal has taken the disability of the claimant at 90% as against the claim of 100% disability.

4. The insurer has satisfied the award passed by the Tribunal. The question before this Court is whether the Tribunal should have taken 100% disability as claimed by the claimant.

5. There is no dispute over the fact that the claimant was in a private job prior to the accident and he has suffered fracture of left UI & LL fractures in the spinal cord. It is also noticed that the claimant has suffered fractures of left humerus/radius/ulnar/left femur/tibia/fibula. The doctors are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The doctors have deposed that the claimant is not in a position to work and is confined to bed, and he is unable to sit or stand on his own. The crossexamination of the doctors does not indicate that the claimant is capable of working and that the claimant has not suffered any disability. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the disability certificate issued by the doctor, which is supported by the evidence of the doctor, this Court is of the view that the functional disability of the claimant has to be assessed at 100%.

6. It is also noticed from the judgment of the Tribunal that nothing is added towards future prospects. This Court would deem it proper to add 25% of the assessed income i.e., Rs.2,250.00 to the loss of future income, as the claimant was aged 42 years as on the date of the accident. Under the circumstances, the compensation payable under the head of 'loss of future income' would be Rs.18,90,000.00 (Rs.9,000.00 + Rs.2,250.00 = Rs.11,250.00 x 12 x 14).

7. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,600.00 towards 'loss of income during laid up period'. Since the claimant's loss of income is assessed taking 100% disability, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of income during laid up period does not arise. Therefore, the award of Rs.6,600.00 under this head has to be set aside and it is set aside.

8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,80,200.00 under the head 'medical expenses'. Subsequent to award, the claimant has filed a Memo of Calculation before the Tribunal calculating the correct medical expenditure incurred as per the medical bills produced before the Tribunal. The said Memo of Calculation is supported by an affidavit