Court re-evaluated income and disability assessments leading to enhanced compensation in personal injury claims, establishing the inadequacy of prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arises out of judgment and award dated 19^th November 2019, passed by the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, Sitting at Kundapura, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC Nos.635/2018 and 633/2018. The appellant in MFA No.5052/2020 is claimant in MVC No.635/2018 and the appellant in MFA No.4882/2020 is claimant in MVC No.633/2018. Both claim petition arises out of common accident and both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and award, they are taken up together for disposal.

Though this appeal is listed for hearing on admission, with the consent of both the parties it is taken up for final disposal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.12.2017 the claimants in MVC Nos.635/2018 and 633/2018 were travelling as passengers in a auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-47-5099 at Mavinakatte, Bengre, Bhatkal Taluk, and they met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-47-J-9582. As a result, the pillion rider of the motorcycle as well as both the passengers in the auto rickshaw sustained grievous injuries. The claimants in both the cases took treatment as inpatient and have suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, they prayed to award the compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the petition averments, denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal has taken up all three petitions arising out of a common accident i.e., MVC No.552/2018 (pillion rider of the offending motorcycle), MVC No.633/2018 (appellant in MFA No.4882/2020) and MVC No.635/2018 (appellant in MFA No.5052/2020). Common evidence was recorded and all three petitions were disposed of by the common judgment and award dated 19.11.2019. The same is challenged by the claimants in MVC Nos.633/2018 and 635/2018.

6. The fact of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimants are not in serious dispute. The respondent No.2-insurer has not challenged the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same.

IN MFA NO.5052/2020 (arising out of MVC No.635/2018):

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the income of the injured, taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The disability assessed by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that there is no need to interfere in the said findings of the Tribunal.

9. On reappreciation of the materials available on record, the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. According to the claimant, she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.9,000/- per month. Compared to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the said amount taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The accident occurred on 15.12.2017, which was about 15 days prior to commencement of the next year. Considering the said fact, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. Age of the claimant was 47 years. Therefore, multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is '13'.

10. According to evidence of the doctor, who had not treated