Permanent disability significantly impacts compensation awards; a claimant's profession and ability to work must be considered in assessing future earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 18.10.2022 passed in MVC No.410/2020 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member of MACT-IV, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for short).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 18.03.2020 at about 5:00 a.m., the claimant was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-28/D-4604 driven by its driver on National Highway No.63. The driver of the said lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed to the parked lorry and caused the accident. As a result of accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries, he was hospitalized and provided first aid treatment at Primary Health Centre, Yallapura and thereafter he was shifted to Dr.Guled Ortho Cares Hospital, Bagalkot. He was inpatient in the said hospital for quite period of time. Doctor performed surgery on his both legs below the knee and were amputed. It is averred that the claimant spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance etc., and due to the accidental injuries, the claimant suffered permanent disability and is unable to continue his avocation of driving. Hence, claim petition is filed seeking compensation.

3. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 entered appearances opposed the claim petition by denying the age, income, avocation, accident and disability suffered by the claimant in the road accident and sought for dismissal of the appeal. The injured claimant examined himself as PW1 and the treated doctor as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6. The Tribunal on analyzing the evidence has assessed the income of the injured at Rs.12,000/- per month, assessed the disability at 65% and awarded total compensation of Rs.25,07,905/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization by directing the respondents to pay the compensation.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Siddappa Sajjan appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the disability, income of the deceased and has awarded meager compensation to the injured claimant without appreciating the fact that the claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and both legs of the claimant were amputed below the knee and he is unable to carry out his avocation of driving due to the disability suffered by him in the road accident. Hence, he seeks to reassess the income, disability and award just compensation.

5. Per contra, Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 jointly submit that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is as per the evidence available on record and does not call for any enhancement. It is submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that both the legs of the claimant were amputed below the knee, awarded compensation under the head of artificial limb and observed that he can do other avocation other than driving. Hence, there cannot be any assessment of disability at 100% as claimed by the claimant. It is submitted that the award of compensation in all heads is just and proper and seek to dismiss the appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the materials available on record, including the Tribunal records.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The only point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is;

“Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?”

8. The above point is answ