The court clarified the need for appropriate assessment of disability in determining compensation, affirming the importance of considering the full impact of injuries on a victim's earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.826/2012 dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, the petitioner/appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 30.07.2012 the petitioner was traveling as a pillion rider on two wheeler bearing No. KA.20.W.8245, to her house at Nitoor at 4.30 p.m., near Manjunatha Eye Hospital, Bannanje, a tempo bearing No.KA.19.C.665 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said two wheeler, resulting in petitioner sustaining injuries. She was shifted to Hi Tech Hospital, Udupi, where she was inpatient for more than 56 days. It was contended that the petitioner was aged about 58 years and was working as a coolie and as such, she has suffered the disability and she may be awarded adequate compensation.

3. The petition was opposed by 3^rd respondent, Insurance Company of the tempo contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. The age, occupation and income of the petitioner is denied. The Insurance Company also contended that there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, it is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P14 were marked in the evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.

5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.2,57,500/- under the following heads:

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

7. On issuance of notice, respondent No.3, Insurance Company has appeared before this Court through its counsel. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 despite service of notice, did not appear.

8. The arguments by learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3 were heard.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the petitioner was aged about 58 years and she was working as a coolie and she has suffered the injuries like degloving injury to the left foot, pericranial haematoma to right frontal region, dislocation in the left foot, auto amputation of 5^th toe of left foot, tarso metatarsal joint dislocation of left foot. Apart from that, there was also a fracture of proximal humerus of left upper limb. It was contended that the petitioner was inpatient for about 56 days and she underwent surgeries with K wire fixation and second toe of the foot was disarticulated which has resulted in a gait. The other fractures were treated with ORIF and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contended that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is also incorrect and therefore, there is a need for reassessment of the compensation.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need for reassessment of the same.

11. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner while was a pillion rider along with her husba