Court held that absence of documentary evidence for income necessitates using notional income, whereas the insurer's liability persists despite challenges to the driver's license.

JUDGMENT :

(K.V. ARAVIND, J.)

Heard Sri Yash R. Nadakarni, learned counsel for Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant- petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.04.2015 passed in MVC No.1134/2013 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded and is filed seeking enhancement thereof.

3. The case of the appellant is that on 03.03.2013, at about 9:00 p.m., while he was proceeding from Peeranwadi towards his native village, Karle, on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-22/W-8938, a TATA Ace Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-22/N-7109 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with his motorcycle. As a result of the said impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted as an inpatient at KLE Hospital, Belagavi, where he underwent surgery and incurred medical expenses exceeding Rs.2,50,000/-.

4. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act ’), seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. It was contended that he was engaged in electrical work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

5. Upon service of notice, the respondents entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their statement of objections, denying the material allegations made in the petition, including the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It was specifically contended that the alleged accident did not occur due to the fault or negligence of the driver of the offending TATA Ace Rickshaw.

6. The petitioner examined 2 witnesses and got marked 15 documents as exhibits in support of his case. On the other hand, the respondents examined 3 witnesses and produced 3 documents, which were marked as exhibits.

7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, assessed the compensation at Rs.3,79,780/-, having taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- and the disability at 10%. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of earnings during the laid-up period, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, food and nourishment, conveyance, and other incidental expenses.

8. Sri Yash R. Nadakarni, learned counsel for Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the absence of proof of established income, the Tribunal erred in not considering the notional income, which, as per prevailing standards, ought to have been taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was a skilled electrical worker and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, has suffered functional disability. The assessment of 10% permanent functional disability by the Tribunal is, therefore, erroneous and contrary to the medical evidence on record.

9. It is further submitted that