The need to prove permanent physical disability for loss of future earnings and the adjustment of compensation based on the nature of injuries and treatment.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K.S.MUDAGAL, J. - "Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant under the impugned award is just"? is the question involved in this case.

2. The appellant was the claimant in M.V.C.No.921/2012 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-8, Shivamogga. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. On 19/7/2012 at about 12.45 p.m. when the appellant was driving his auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-14-A-7333 near Nandi Petrol Bunk, Kuvempu road, Shivamogga City, the Maruthi Omni Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-14-M-2332 hit the auto rickshaw of the appellant and caused the accident. In the accident the appellant suffered grievous injuries and his auto rickshaw was damaged.

4. The appellant was shifted to Mc.Gann hospital, Shivamogga. From there he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedic Centre, Bengaluru. He was treated in the said hospital as inpatient between 19/7/2012 to 18/8/2012. He underwent surgeries in the said hospital for the fracture suffered by him. At the relevant time respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and insurer of the Maruthi Omni Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-14-M-2332.

5. On the complaint of the wife of the claimant alleging that accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the driver of the Maruthi Omni Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-14-M-2332, Shivamogga Traffic Police registered FIR as per Ex.P1 in Crime No.177/2012 against the driver of the Maruthi Omni Ambulance. On investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and driver of the car pleaded guilty as per Ex.P6. He was sentenced to fine.

6. The claimant filed MVC No.921/2012 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.18, 95, 000.00 for the personal injuries as well as for the damages caused to his auto rickshaw on the ground that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Ambulance bearing registration No.KA14-M-2332. He further contended that due to the injury suffered by him in the accident he has suffered permanent physical disability and loss of future earnings.

7. The respondents contested the petition denying the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Ambulance, the injury suffered by the appellant and the permanent physical disability, his age, occupation and income. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant himself.

8. In support of his case, the claimant was examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to P94 were marked on his behalf. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence. On their behalf Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. There was no dispute at the time of the accident. The offending car was insured with second respondent.

9. The Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-14- M-2332. The Tribunal relying on the Exs.P4, P5, P8 and P9 held that in the accident the appellant suffered grievous injuries but failed to establish that he has suffered permanent physical disability by examining the concerned doctor.

10. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.2, 18, 600.00 on different heads payable by the second respondent-insurer as per the table below.

Submission of Smt.Vidya.R.Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant:

11. The medical records produced by the claimant clearly show that he has suffered permanent physical disability. Therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded him the compensation for loss of future earnings. The compensation awarded on the other heads is on lower side. Submission of Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.U.Panduranga Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

12. Since the claimant himself did not examine the do