The assessment of compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and the total loss of earning capacity, ensuring just and adequate reparation for lifelong disabilities.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.11.2021 passed in MVC No.844/2019 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Aland (for short, ‘Tribunal), questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix of case of injured/petitioner is that on 01.05.2019 he was proceeding towards Nalwar Tanada from Yagapur, Chandunayak Tanda, Yadgir as a pillion rider on motorcycle No.MH-01-DJ-2570 and when they came near Halo Block Factor at Yargol to Nalwar road, Yargol the rider of the said motorcycle rode in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, last control over the vehicle and turn turtle and fell down from the motorcycle. As a result, the injured/petitioner sustained diffuse axonal injury with multiple intracranial injuries and bilateral surgical emphysema and focal diaphragmatic injury. He also sustained injuries to his chest and back and other parts of his body. Immediately, injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Yadgir wherein he took first aid and on the very same day he was admitted at United Hospital, Kalaburagi as inpatient from 01.05.2019 to 02.07.2019. Later he was shifted to Government Medical College and Sts.JJ Group of Hospital, Mumbai for higher treatment wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 03.07.2019 to 31.07.2019. It is contended in the claim petition that injured incurred more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. It is the case of injured that prior to the accident injured was hale and healthy, aged about 19 years, doing a labour work. Due to the said injuries he became permanently disabled and also he is bedridden and not in a position to speak. He completely lost his memory due to injuries sustained by him. Now he is under the custody of his mother. The claim petition was resisted by respondent No.2 by denying the income, occurrence of accident, nature of injuries and disability and the amount spent towards medical expenses.

4. In order to substantiate the nature of injuries and also to prove the claim made by the injured as he was not in a position to speak, his next friend mother was represented and examined as PW.1 and produced documents as Exs.P1 to 13. The injured also got examined the Doctor as PW.2. The respondents have not led any evidence except producing document as Ex.R1.

5. The Tribunal having considered the material available on record, insofar as Issue No.3 is concerned having considered the amount claimed in the claim petition taken note of pain and suffering and also the documents at Exs.P.9 and 10 i.e., hospital records of United Hospital and Mumbai Hospital and considering the grievous injuries and also the injuries to the injured over the chest and head and diffused axonal multiple intracranial injuries and taken note of the evidence of the Doctor who has been examined as PW.2 before the Tribunal and also considered the medical bills totally 220 in number produced before the Tribunal having spent an amount of Rs.5,32,270/- towards medical expenses and Tribunal also discussed in detail with regard to the future medical expenses as well as attendant charges, food and conveyance charges, particularly discussed in respect of income during treatment period as well as loss of future earning capacity. In paragraph No.23 discussed that injured was inpatient for a period of 88 days in United