The court ruled on the enhancement of compensation based on the evaluation of permanent disability, loss of income, and the assessment of contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 22.12.2012 in MVC No.348/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

2. The appellant/claimant, who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 20.01.2011, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, seeking compensation amount of Rs.61,05,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.08,81,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

3. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has sustained nine injuries in the accident, resulting in quadripraesis i.e., weakness of the body below neck. He was hospitalized for 41 days, required a wheelchair, and lost sensation in both his upper and lower limbs, the permanent disability was consequently assessed at 82% for the whole body, with a 100% loss of earning capacity. Although he has incurred medical expenses of Rs.40,000/- the Tribunal granted only Rs.1,10,200/- towards this head. Furthermore, the appellant was previously running a grocery business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, a fact which the Tribunal erred in taking his income as merely Rs.5,000/- per month. The doctor's advised for two years of complete bed rest, making the Tribunal's assessment of compensation manifestly inadequate.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he was treated as an inpatient for 41 days and attended outpatient appointments for 23 times and he travelled from his residence to the hospital, the amounts granted under the said heads are meager. The Tribunal wrongly assessed 25% as Contributory Negligence on his part. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation.

7. The manner of accident shows the appellant was travelling along with his wife and three minor children on the motorcycle and met with an accident with a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing No.KA-47-2287. It is stated that the driver of the Bolero vehicle driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, came onto the extreme right side of the road and dashed the appellant's motorcycle.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the motorcycle was overloaded and he lost control over the vehicle and contributed for the negligence and the Tribunal has rightly considered the Contributory Negligence as 25% on part of the appellant. Whereas, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no admissible evidence on record to establish contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant, this Court considering the manner in which the accident occurred, finds it just and reasonable to attribute Contributory Negligence in the ratio of 90% to the driver of the Bolero vehicle and 10% to the appellant/claimant.

9. Taking into account the fact that the claimant has suffered fracture which is grievous in nature along with nine injuries and that the claimant was an inpatient for 41 days and outpatient for 23 times and he travelle