The court reaffirmed the need for adequate compensation for injuries, addressing the proper assessment of functional disability and pain, leading to a modification of the total awarded compensation based on the claimant's injuries.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi V Hosmani, J.

Challenging judgment and award dated 13.08.2019 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.440/2018, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, at 11:30 A.M., on 28.11.2017, when claimant was unloading goods, driver of Lorry bearing registration no. KA-32-A-3468 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant, causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained several injuries. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully leading to loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of Lorry.

3. Respondent no.1-owner of Lorry remained ex parte. Respondent no.2-Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds and denied averments made in claim petition in toto.

4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Raju Kulkarni, as PWs.1 and 2. Exhibits P.1 to P.16 were got marked. Insurer did not lead oral evidence, but got marked certified copy of Insurance policy with consent as Ex.R1.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident was due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and claimant had sustained permanent physical disability leading to loss of earning capacity and entitled for compensation from Insurer as follows:

Dissatisfied with award, claimant is in appeal.

6. It was submitted, claimant sustained crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin and fracture of left fibula. Hence, assessment of functional disability was on lower side. Award of Rs.65,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’; Rs.16,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges for in-patient treatment for 32 days; Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities was also on lower side; and even assessment of monthly income of claimant was improper. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses and sought for enhancement.

7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for Insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, taking note of facts and circumstances of case into consideration, Tribunal had assessed compensation, leaving no scope for enhancement.

8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and certified copies of deposition and Exhibits made available for perusal by learned counsel for appellant.

9. From above and since it is claimant’s appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is :

“Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?”

10. Insofar as monthly income, claimant stated, he was aged 42 years of age and working as Coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, he failed to substantiate same. In absence of specific proof of income, Tribunal assessed it at Rs.8,000/- per month notionally. But notional income for year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- as adopted by KSLSA for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Therefore, same has to be considered as monthly income. As per Ex.P6-wound certificate, Ex.P9-discharge summary and Ex.P10-disability certificate, claimant sustained c