The court ruled that compensation for injuries must reflect the severity of the injuries and loss of earning capacity, prioritizing evidence and established guidelines for assessment.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

1. Since, both appeals are arising out of same judgment, they are clubbed together and taken up for disposal.

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 30.08.2011 passed by MACT, No.VI, Bijapur at Bijapur in MVCs No.1315 and 1375/2010, these appeals are filed.

3. Sri CL Koujalagi, learned counsel submitted that appeals were by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, at 12:45 p.m. on 18.07.2010, Jakkappa was riding as pillion on motorcycle bearing no.MH-12/Y-7313 on Sanglola-Mangalaweda road. Near Maan river bridge, driver of Jeep no.MH-45/A-7280 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle, causing accident. In said accident, both riders sustained grievous injuries and were admitted to hospital. Despite treatment, they sustained permanent physical disability and consequently, loss of earning capacity. Therefore, they filed MVCs no.1315 and 1375/2010 respectively against owner and insurer of Jeep.

4. On contest, wherein owner was placed ex-parte, insurer opposed claim petitions denying age, occupation, income, permanent physical disability, loss of earning capacity as well as negligence on part of driver of Jeep. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimants examined themselves and Dr. AA Magi, as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 18. Respondent did not lead any oral evidence, but copy of insurance policy was marked with consent as RW-1.

5. On consideration, tribunal held that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Jeep as well as rider of motorcycle in ratio 80:20. Tribunal assessed compensation as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

6. In MVC no.1315/2010, it was submitted, claimant was a student/paper vendor and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, tribunal considered his monthly income at Rs.3,000/, which was on lower side. It was submitted, award of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards loss of amenities, which was also on lower side and tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of earning during laid up period. Rs.30,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is also on lower side. On above grounds, sought for enhancement.

7. In MVC no.1375/2010, similar grounds were urged.

8. On other hand, Sri Sharanabasappa M Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed appeals. It was submitted, tribunal had considered injuries sustained and had awarded just compensation under separate heads, leaving no scope for enhancement.

9. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award.

10. From above, since only claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation, common point that would arise for consideration is “Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?”

11. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons.

12. In MVC no.1315/2010, claimant is said to have been working as student/paper vendor and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, same is not substantiated with any specific evidence. In absence, tribunal assessed income notionally. Notional income for year 2010 as per chart prepared by KSLSA is Rs.5,500/-, which has to be considered as his monthly income. Tribunal noted claimant sustained in