The court clarified that compensation for injury claims must reflect true income loss and future prospects, especially for young claimants facing permanent disabilities.

JUDGMENT :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant – claimant seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded in the judgment and award dated 04.11.2017 passed in MVC.No.630/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant – claimant would contend that the accident has taken place in the year 2016 and at that time the appellant – claimant was aged 27 years and he was driver holding driving license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. The appellant – claimant has sustained seven fractures and he has been admitted for 24 days. PW.2 – Doctor has given Ex.P.10 – disability certificate stating that there is 40% disability to the whole body. PW.3 – Doctor has given the disability certificate as per Ex.P.11 stating that the appellant – claimant is having 25% of permanent disability. He submits that due to the accident, the appellant – claimant has sustained head injury and as per evidence of PW.2 – Doctor, he is able to rotate his neck only to the extent of 08 to 10 degrees and therefore, he cannot drive the vehicle. He submits that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that implant fixed requires to be removed by operation and for that the appellant – claimant requires future medical expenses. There is a disfiguration of the face and therefore, there is a loss of prospects of marriage. Considering the occupation of the appellant – claimant, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month is on lower side. The compensation awarded towards loss of amenities by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 –insurance company would contend that the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 21% and the income taken by the Tribunal is also proper and correct. He submits that there are no grounds for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2 – insurance company, this Court perused the impugned judgment and award and Trial Court records.

6. The accident, age and occupation of the appellant - claimant are not in dispute. The accident has taken place in the year 2016, age of the appellant - claimant was 27 years and his occupation was driver. Ex.P.16 is the driving license of the appellant - claimant. The date of issuance of the said driving license is 18.01.2013. Considering the driving license, the appellant – claimant is authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle.

7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sharanabasav s/o Vijayakumar Biradar vs. M/s. Arneja Auto Logistics and another in MFA.No.201173/2021 disposed of on 26.06.2025, has considered the monthly income of the driver holding driving license with transport endorsement and license to drive the heavy transport vehicle at Rs.20,000/- per month.

8. In the case on hand, the appellant – claimant is holding driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Considering the said aspect, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month is on the lower side. Considering the nature of vehicle authorized to drive under the license, the income of the appellant – claimant requires to be taken at Rs.12,000/- per month.

9. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish vs. Mohan and others, reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571, it is held that in the case of self-employed person in addition 40% of established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of accident was below 40 years. In the case on hand, the appellant – claimant was driver aged 27 years and therefore