The court clarified that compensation must reflect true income potential considering long-term impacts of injuries, explicitly stating that future prospects and permanent disability should be prioritized in determination.

JUDGMENT :

B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.

This appeal is by the claimant in MVC No.2266/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal has allowed appellant's claim petition for compensation in part by the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2019 granting a total sum of Rs.24,08,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurer does not dispute its liability, and in fact, the amount as is awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited.

2. The appellant's claim for compensation is in the following circumstances:

2.1 The appellant, a bachelor who is aged 25 years [as of 08.04.2018] and employed with M/s. AGIES Co. Ltd., has met with an accident while riding his motor-cycle on Varthur Main Road. The accident is with the Tanker bearing No.KA-53/C- 9811. The appellant has alleged that the driver of this Tanker, which is insured with the second respondent was rash and negligent and therefore, the jurisdictional Police registered first information in Crime No.59/2018 against the driver.

2.2 The Owner and the Insurer of the Tanker have contested this claim denying that the driver of the Tanker was rash and negligent. The Tribunal, on examination of the evidence on record [including the Police records], has opined that the appellant was negligent in not noticing the oncoming vehicle [Tanker]. The Tribunal has opined that the appellant has also contributed to the accident and the negligence between the appellant and the driver of the vehicle is in the ratio of 10:90. Though Mr. K T Gurudev Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant, endeavours to interfere with this finding, this is Court is not persuaded.

3. The Tribunal, taking the appellant's monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and applying the multiplier of '17' based on the claimant's age but without addition towards Future Prospects has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.26,75,956/- under the following heads:

Since there is contributory negligence of 10% as determined by the Tribunal, the appellant is awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.24,08,361/- [Rs.26,75,956/- - Rs.2,67,595/-]

3. Mr. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad submits that this Court must award higher compensation towards (i) Pain and Sufferings, (ii) Cost of Transportation, Nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant Charges, (iii) Loss of Future Income because of Permanent Disability, and (iv) Loss of Income during laid up period. Mr. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad submits under these heads:

3.1 On the Pain and Suffering. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.80,000/- but the appellant, who has suffered multiple fractures in his right leg and also the upper limb. He was hospitalized for over of four months, and ultimately, the Doctors have decided to ampute his right leg below knee. These circumstances have put the appellant to lots of pain and suffering, and there must be just compensation under this head.

3.2 On the Cost of Transportation, Nourishment and other Charges: The appellant, a resident of Tamil Nadu but working in Bengaluru was hospitalized for over four months in Bengaluru with different Hospitals until he suffered the amputation. A sum of Rs.50,000/- towards Transportation, Nourishment and other charges in this context will be very paltry and there mus