The tribunal's compensation order was modified to reflect a reassessed total of Rs.21,00,000, acknowledging functional disability and the necessity for adequate future earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

(C.M. POONACHA, J.)

The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1980, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1980’] calling in question the judgment and award dated 10.04.2018 passed in MVC No.541/2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV at Davanagere, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’]

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 10.04.2018 has partly allowed the claim petition and has awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,11,885/- together with interest at 8% per annum and directed respondent No.3 - insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation.

4. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability are not under challenge and have attained finality. Hence, the only aspect that is required to be considered in the present appeal is with regard to adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded.

5. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri Sree Harsha AK appearing for the appellant – claimant and learned counsel Sri HS Lingaraj appearing for respondent No.1 – insurer.

6. The claimant is aged 48 years as on the date of the accident i.e., 24.02.2017. The Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘13’, which is just and proper.

7. The claimant was stated to be agriculturist and also doing contract work and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month. However, having regard to the date of accident, it is just and proper that the notional income of the claimant be re-assessed as Rs.11,000/- per month.

8. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P6), discharge summary (Ex.P8), the disability certificate (Ex.P12) as also the testimony of the Doctor (PW2) that the claimant has sustained injuries on his right hand and the right hand of the claimant above the elbow has been amputated. The claimant was treated as an impatient from 24.02.2017 to 15.03.2017 i.e., for a period of 20 days. The Doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 84%. The Tribunal has re-assessed the disability at 30%.

9. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the disability ought to be assessed at a higher percentage. It is pertinent to note that for amputation of right arm below the shoulder in the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, [Hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1923”] as per serial No.2 in part.2 of schedule 1, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is stated as 80%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JITENDRA V/S SADIYA AND OTHERS , [“2025 SCC Online SC 261”], considering the case of the amputation of right hand of a labourer has assessed the functional disability as 80%. In view of the same, the functional disability of the claimant is re-assessed as 80%.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant – claimant placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of PAVAN V/S VIJAYKUMAR AND ANOTHER , [“MFA No.201413/2022 dated 08.04.2024”] has contended that the compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities requires to be enhanced.

11. It is also relevant to note that having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SIDRAM V/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD , [“ (2023)3 SCC 439 ”], future prospects is required to be applied while calculating the loss of disability.

12. In view of the a