Court increased compensation for injuries, considering future income loss, pain, and suffering, ultimately awarding Rs.13,92,800.

JUDGMENT :

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation against the Judgment and award dated 19.12.2017 in M.V.C.No.535/2013 by I Additional District Judge and MACT, Raichur (hereinafter referred to ‘the tribunal’)

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that, the appellant was a driver and he has been selected for the post of Driver-cum-conductor by the NEKSRTC, Koppal Division and in that regard, a letter has been issued as per Ex.P.6 dated 18.02.2013.

4. The appellant/claimant met with an accident on 01.03.2013 and due to the injuries and treatment he could not appear for duties/training and therefore, his name has been deleted from the selection list as per Ex.P.8 dated 20.01.2013. She submits that, in MFA No.201173/2021, this Court has considered monthly income of the driver holding driving license with transport endorsement and license to drive heavy vehicle at Rs.20,000/- per month. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court considering the said Judgment in MFA No.201314/2015 disposed of on 14.07.2025 has taken the income of the deceased driver at Rs.10,000/- per month as the claimants themselves have stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and getting Rs.100/- batta per day and the tribunal has taken his income at Rs.13,000/- per month and added future prospects at 40%. He further submits that, the award of compensation by the tribunal towards pain and sufferings, loss of future income, loss of income during laid up period, towards attendant charges, special food and diet are on lower side. She submits that, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of amenities and for future medical expenses. With this, she prays for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company vehemently contended that, the claimant even though suffered disability, but he can do other alternate avocation and earn his livelihood. He contends that, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is proper and correct. The claimant has failed to establish his income and therefore, he is entitle only for notional income.

6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned Judgment and award and the trial Court records.

7. The appellant / claimant was holding a driving license to drive the Heavy Transport Vehicle and he has been selected for the post of driver in KSRTC, Kalaburagi and letter in that regard dated 18.02.2013 is at Ex.P.6. Subsequent to the said Ex.P.6, the appellant / claimant met with an accident on 01.03.2013 and sustained fractures. The appellant / claimant due to the injuries sustained and he was under treatment, he could not join for the post of Trainee Driver and therefore, his name has been dropped from the selection list as per office order dated 21.12.2013 (Ex.P.8). The said documents clearly indicate that the appellant / claimant is a driver holding a driving license to drive the Heavy Transport Vehicle.

8. This Court in the case of Sharanabasav s/o Vijaykumar Biradar vs. M/S. Arneja Auto Logistics and another in MFA.No.201173/2021 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. However, the appellant/claimant himself has stated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering the avocation of the appellant/claimant as driver, the monthly income of the appellant/claimant taken by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is on lower side. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month, in view of the judgment of