The court established that compensation for disability must include future prospects and reflect adequate adjustment for pain, suffering, and medical needs resulting from the accident.

JUDGMENT :

(RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.)

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

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 28.12.2022 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi, (for short, ‘tribunal’) in MVC no.151/2019, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 29.11.2017 when claimant was waiting to cross road near Madbool cross, driver of car no.KA-32/N-7799 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant causing accident. Due to injuries sustained in accident, he was shifted to P.G.Shah Hospital, Kalaburagi and later to Kothadia Hospital, Solapur. Despite treatment, he sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , against owner and insurer of car.

4. On contest, wherein, only insurer filed objections denying rash and negligent driving by driver of insured vehicle, age, occupation, income and disability sustained by claimant as well as alleging violation of policy conditions, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Ravi E.Shivaraya as PWs.1 and 2. Exs.P1 to P15 were got marked. In rebuttal, insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

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

6. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. It was submitted, though claimant had stated that he was working as builder earning Rs.25,000/- per month, tribunal erred in assessing it notionally at Rs.10,250/- only. It was submitted, accidental injuries had led to amputation of his right limb below knee. PW.2 had assessed limb disability at 65%. However, tribunal erred in considering functional disability at 20% only and sought enhancement.

7. Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation , (2022) 18 S.C.R. 427 it was submitted that future prospects were required to be added to monthly income even in case of personal injury claims. It was submitted compensation awarded to other heads namely pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendance and loss of income during laid-up period were also on lower side and sought enhancement. It was submitted, tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses for artificial limb, its periodic maintenance and replacement. On above grounds sought enhancement.

8. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, considering facts and circumstances wherein claimant had failed to substantiate his monthly income, tribunal had assessed it notionally and rightly awarded compensation under various heads. Same was adequate and did not call for interference.

9. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment and award.

10. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement of c