Insured driver's valid license for a Light Motor Vehicle is upheld; compensation reassessed leading to an enhanced award of ₹57,000 for sustained injuries.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The above appeal is filed by the insurer assailing the judgment and award dated 5.01.2017 passed in MVC No.255/2015 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ contending, inter alia, that the insured driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the insured vehicle as on the date of the accident and hence the insurer is required to be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation awarded. It is contended that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is excessive. The cross objection is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of `3,67,633/-, together with interest at 6% p.a on `3,55,633/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It was further ordered that the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded.

3. Heard submissions of the learned counsel Smt. HR Renuka for the insurer and Sri. Nagaraja Hegde for the claimant.

4. The insurer is that the insured vehicle is an autorickshaw which is a Light motor vehicle (LMV) whose unladen weight is 350kgs. The driver of the insured vehicle possessed a license to drive a non-transport vehicle from 25.01.2011 to 24.01.2031. The Tribunal held that the insured vehicle, being an autorickshaw, is a LMV and hence the driver held a valid and effective driving license.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ,, [2017 SC 3668] has held as under:

"46. xxxxx

(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994."

6. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan, the contention regarding liability put forth by the insurer does not merit consideration and is accordingly rejected.

7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is forthcoming that the claimant was aged 50 years as on the date of the accident, i.e., as on 22.01.2015. The claimant was stated to be doing centering work for construction. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as `7,000 per month. However, the notional income of the claimant, having regard to the date of the accident, is reassessed as `9,000 per month.

8. The claimant sustained comminuted fracture of both bones of the right toes with bone loss; right hand fifth finger loss with fracture of PPX; and that fracture of right ulna and radium bone. The claimant has examined a Doctor (PW-2), who has assessed the disability of the claimant as 30% to the right upper limb. The Tribunal has assessed the disability as 18%. The claimant was treated as an inpatient from 22.01.2015 to 30.01.2015 and once again on 3.8.2015 to 11.08.2015 i.e., for a total period of 18 days. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has sustained fracture of both bones of the right forearm and having regard to the nature of avocation of the claimant, it is just and proper that the disability of the claimant be reassessed as 15%.

9. Having regard to the aforementioned, the compensation is reassessed as follows:

9.1 Keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering as well as future medical ex