Court emphasized the need for comprehensive evaluation of medical evidence in assessing compensation for personal injuries, particularly concerning permanent disability and loss of income.

JUDGMENT :

P. SREE SUDHA, J.

In MFA No.4703/2016

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2016 passed in MVC No.634/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K for enhancement the compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the sides.

3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. It is the case of injury. The injured claimant aged 32 years at the time of accident filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record has granted compensation of Rs.3,27,008/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contend that the petitioner had sustained multiple injuries, he was inpatient from 07.02.2014 to 19.02.2014. Injury No.6 was grievous in nature, as such an amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘Pain and Sufferings’ and the same is on lower side. He was doing coolie work and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and also filed salary certificate to that effect. But the Tribunal wrongly taken his income as Rs.6,000/- per month. As per Ex.P15 – disability certificate, he suffered 30% permanent disability due to visual impairment and also examined PW4 and as per Ex.P16, he suffered 25% permanent disability and also examined PW3 but the Tribunal awarded meager amount under the head of loss of future income on the ground that disability can be reduced by making surgery and it is opposed to medical evidence. The amount granted for ’Loss of Amenities’ is also meager as there was a disfigurement of the face and it can be seen from Ex.P21-photograph. Lessor amount was granted under ‘Future Medical Expenses’. The cost of future surgery is mentioned as Rs.2,00,000/- by the doctor and Exs.P13 and P14 are also filed by them showing cost future surgery. Rate of interest is also on lower side. Therefore, requested for enhancement.

6. On perusal Ex.P4-wound certificate, it discloses that the petitioner has sustained following injuries:

i. Laceration with loss of tissue on the forehead;

ii. Lacerated injuries over right eye brow area and below the right eye;

iii. Nasal bleed;

iv. Lacerated injury from right forehead;

v. Over bridge of nose to left side of face, laceration 3 x 1 cm over right chest;

vi. Communited fracture of lateral wall of right orbit, fracture bilateral lumina. Multiple fracture bilateral nasal bones, nasal septum, haemisinus bilateral ethmoidail air cells, fracture of anterior medial walls of bilateral maxillary sinus, lateral wall of with haemosinus.

7. The petitioner was hospitalized for 13 days and injuries were grievous in nature. Petitioner examined the doctors as PW2 to PW4 to substantiate his case. Ex.P11 is the discharge summary. The petitioner has incurred Rs.92,618/- towards medical expenses but Rs.30,000/- was reimbursed from Family Health Scheme and Rs.5,000/- discount was given by them. Thus, he paid Rs.57,618/- at the time of discharge. But Tribunal granted Rs.59,008/- towards ‘Medial Expenses’ and it needs no interference.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the disability certificate issued by PW3 and PW