The court established that in claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to substantiate claims of income and disability, and that notional income can be reassessed based on prevailing legal standards.

JUDGMENT

S.G.PANDIT, J. - Though this appeal is listed for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. The injured claimant is before this Court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award, dtd. 30/7/2016, passed in M.V.C. No.565/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

3. Heard learned counsel Sri. S.L.Linganagoudar for Sri. Harish S.Maigur, for the appellant-claimant, and learned counsel Sri. Suresh S.Gundi, appearing for respondent No.2-insurance company.

4. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15/12/2013 involving Mahindra Xylo Car bearing registration No.KA25/P-6367. It was stated that by the claimant that he was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident and he was earning Rs.50, 000.00 per month from his transport business and used to contribute to the maintenance of his family.

5. On service of notice, the respondent-insurance company appeared and filed its written statement denying the allegations that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The respondentinsurance company also contended that the driver of the offending car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1, and examined a doctor viz., Dr. Duresh Duggani, as P.W.2, apart from marking eleven documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal based on the material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8, 46, 200.00 on the following heads:

While granting the above compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant-claimant at Rs.6, 000.00 per month and assessed the total physical disability at 40%, adopted the multiplier 15' taking the age of the appellant-claimant at 39 years. The appellantclaimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court seeking enhancement.

7. Learned counsel, Sri. S.L.Linganagoudar, for the appellant would submit that the income of the injured claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6, 000.00 per month is on the lower side. He submits that the claimant was earning Rs.50, 000.00 per month from his transport business, and because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, the appellant-claimant cannot carry on his transport business effectively as he is not able to drive the vehicle. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal, without taking note of the evidence of the claimant, has assessed the income at Rs.6, 000.00 per month which is on lower side. Thus, he prays for reassessing the income on the higher side.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit that the Tribunal erred in assessing the whole body disability at 40% without looking to the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor. He further submits that the injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant would not permit the claimant to drive the vehicles and as such, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the total whole body disability at 100%. Learned counsel would also submit that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the appellant as 39 years ignoring the disability certificate-Ex.P.9 which indicates the age of the injured claimant as 35 years. Learned counsel would also submit that the claimant was inpatient for four days and having regard to the injuries suffered, the compensation awarded on other heads is on the lower side. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal and enhancing the compensation.

9. Per contra, Sri. Suresh S. Gundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is