The court holds that compensation assessments must address actual income loss and future medical needs, especially in cases of permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.5708/2017 dated 20.11.2020 whereby, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.12,03,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that, on 24.02.2017, the petitioner was riding pillion on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA.02/HP.6679 from Nelamangala to Yediyur. Her brother Prasad was riding the motorcycle. At about 03.00 pm., when they reached near Begur Bridge, NH 75 Road, Kunigal Taluk, at that time, a Car bearing Reg.No.KA.44/7545 came from Hassan side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to the terrible impact, the petitioner and the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital, Bellur Cross wherein she was given first aid and thereafter, she was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Bengaluru wherein she took treatment as an inpatient and spent huge amount towards conveyance and treatment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 24 years and was working as Quality Engineer at Cadres Studec Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru and getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. The injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident have caused her permanent disability, due to which, she is unable to continue her avocation and thereby she has suffered loss of future income.

4. Learned counsel Sri S.R.Sreeprasad for the claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The claimant though sustained permanent physical disability at 43%, however, the Tribunal has considered the disability at 14.3%, which is on lower side. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head “loss of marriage prospects”. At the time of accident, the claimant’s age was about 24 years and she was unmarried. It is further contended that the claimant was working as a Quality Control Engineer and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on lower side. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded fair and reasonable compensation under “other conventional heads”. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri B.Pradeep for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that, the claimant has not furnished any evidence to substantiate that she was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has granted fair and reasonable compensation under all conventional heads. Hence, he prayed to reject the appeal.

6. We have perused the material available on record. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is as under:

- Whether the Quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for any enhancement?

7. To prove the claim of the appellant, she herself examined as PW.1 and she also got examined doctor as PW.2 and one Chethan Kumar S. as PW.3 and got marked documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11.

8. In her evidence, the claimant has reiterated the contents of claim petition, wherein she has stated that in the accident, she sustained grievous injuries and thus, she has undergone (1) Debridement + closed faciotomy + repair of quadriceps