IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for permanent disability, loss of future prospects, and the need for just compensation for pain, suffering, and trauma caused by the accident.

JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 3.2.2021 passed in MVC.No.1376/2019 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’)

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 25.09.2019, the appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15/W-8784, at that time, one Nissan Car bearing registration No.KA-04/ML-1640 came from opposite direction in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, resulted in sustaining grevious injuries to the appellant. It is averred that the appellant was hospitalized initially from 25.09.2019 to 30.10.2019 and his right leg above the knee was amputed, therefore, again he was admitted to Dr.Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga from 30.10.2019 to 1.11.2019. It is further averred that during treatment, appellant incurred substantial amount towards medical expenses. It is also averred that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant suffered disability and is unable to carryout any work, which he used to carryout prior to the accident. Hence, the appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and opposed the claim petition. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.22,15,600/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Sri.Harish S Maigur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the disability of the appellant at 70% to the whole body contrary to the evidence available on record ignoring the fact that the appellant’s right leg was amputated above knee. Hence, he seeks to consider the functional disability of the appellant at 100%. He further submits that the appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss of future prospects as he is unable to carryout any agricultural activities, which he used to carryout prior to the accident. Thus, he seeks to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, Sri.Suresh S.Gundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal taking note of the evidence of PW3-doctor, who has rightly assessed disability of the appellant at 70% to the whole body, which does not call for interference. It is submitted that the Tribunal awarded compensation towards future medical expenses, from which he can purchase artificial limb and do the lighter work, hence, his disability cannot be assessed on the higher side. The award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads are just and proper, requires no enhancement. Thus, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

8. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the appellant met with an accident on 25.09.2019 and sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending car was negligent and caused the accident in question. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was insured with respondent/insurer and they are liable to pay compensation. The appellant/claimant in order to prove his claim examined himself as PW2 and one Dr.Manjunath has been examined as PW3. PW3-doctor has deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and his right leg was amputed above the knee and h