The court clarified the need for functional disability assessment in determining compensation, asserting that future earnings loss should reflect realistic income capabilities post-injury.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC.Nos.1643/2017 and 1644/2017 dated 01.03.2019 by the learned XXI ACMM, SCJ and MACT, Bengaluru, the petitioners have approached this Court in appeals in MFA.No.5187/2019 and MFA.No.5188/2019; and the Insurance Company has approached this Court in appeal in MFA.No.5567/2019.

3. The dispute in all these appeals is in respect of the quantum of the compensation awarded and there is no dispute in respect of the liability fastened upon respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

-

4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.01.2017, the petitioner-Sri.L.Madhu (MVC.No.1643/2017) was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-JH-9229 and the petitioner- Sri.Lingaraj M. (MVC.No.1644/2017) was pillion rider. While they were going near Kallugopanahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar District, a car owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 bearing registration No.KA-05- AD-1512 came in a high speed and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle from behind, resulting in an accident, where the petitioners sustained injuries. They were immediately shifted to hospital and underwent surgeries and treatment. The petitioner - Sri.L.Madhu had sustained fracture of the right leg and later, he took treatment at Tanmay Hospital, Vijayanagar and thereafter, at Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioner had to suffer amputation of the right lower limb below knee and contending that he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Sales Executive, he had suffered permanent disability and as such, he is entitled for adequate compensation.

-

5. The petitioner - Sri. Lingaraj M. contended that he had suffered a fracture of tibia and fibula of the right leg and due to such injuries, he has suffered permanent disability. He contended that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and aged about 55 years and as such, he is entitled for adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

6. On service of notice, the respondent-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and contended that the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05-AD-1512 had no valid and effective driving licence and there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Inter alia, it also denied the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law.

7. In MVC.No.1643/2017, the petitioner-Sri.L.Madhu got examined himself before the Tribunal as PW.1. He has also examined Record Keeper at Sparsh Hospital as PW.2 and Record Keeper at Tanmay Hospital as PW.3 and the Doctor who assessed his disability was examined as PW.4. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked.

In MVC.No.1644/2017, the petitioner-Sri.Lingaraj M.got examined himself before the Tribunal as PW.1. He has also examined Record Keeper at Tanmay Hospital as PW.2 and the Doctor who assessed his disability was examined as PW.3. Exs.P1 to P18 were marked.

The official of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1.

8. After hearing the argument of both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,50,955/- to the petitioner in MVC.No.1643/2017 and a sum of Rs.3,72,282/- to the petitioner in MVC.No.1644/2017 under different heads as below:

-

In MVC.No.1643/2017:

In MVC.No.1644/2017: