In accident claims, apportioning liability is essential when a driver operates without a valid license, validating modifications to awarded compensation based on accurate assessments of income and disability.

JUDGMENT :

S G PANDIT, J.

The claimant/appellant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under Judgment and Award dated 14.06.2018 in MVC No.2540/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/injured filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.11.2014 involving Tempo bearing No.KA-23/5931. It is stated that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and that he spent for treatment more than Rs..5,00,000/- as an inpatient. Further, it is also stated that he was aged 34 years and working as a goundi and was earning more than Rs..22,000/- per month. Further, it is stated that the right hand is amputated below shoulder and above elbow. As such, the petitioner claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

4. On receipt of notice, the respondent-Insurance Company appeared and filed its objection statement denying the contents of the petition and also contending that the compensation sought is exorbitant. Further, the insurer contended that the tempo was carrying more than 20 passengers as against a 12+1 seating capacity, thereby violating the conditions of insurance policy. It is also contended that the driver of the said tempo was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, prayed for dismissal of claim petition.

5. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2-doctor and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. Whereas, the respondent examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Exs.R.1 to R.12.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs..8,20,816/-. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the injured/appellant at Rs..6,000/- per month, assessed the whole body disability at 50% and applied multiplier of 15. Further, the Tribunal saddled the liability on respondent No.1-owner.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the appeal papers.

8. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant, Sri Hanamant R Latur would contend that since the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid licence to drive the vehicle, the Tribunal ought to have passed pay and recovery order and in that regard, he places reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yallavva and Others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2239

9. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs..6,000/- per month of the claimant is on lower side and he submits that the notional income taken for the accidents of the year 2014 in terms of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority would be Rs..7,500/- per month. Therefore, he prays to reassess the notional income of the appellant/injured.

10. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal also committed an error in assessing the whole body disability of the claimant/appellant at 50%. It is his submission that when the right hand is amputated above elbow and below shoulder, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the whole body disability more than 50% and further he submits that since the claimant was working as a goundi, he would not be in a position to carry