Income of a claimant in accident cases should be assessed based on statutory guidelines, and contributory negligence must be supported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

1. Injured claimant is before this Court under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act, 1988’) not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 26.03.2021 in MVC No.282/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Sirsi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) and praying for enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in an accident that occurred on 08.03.2018 involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-31/Y-9482 and Maruthi Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KA-31/M-7076. It is stated that the claimant had sustained GA type III B left distal radius fracture with radial styloid bone loss with loss of ECRB and EPL tendon with superficial radial nerve injury. It is stated that the injured appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as agricultural coolie and was aged about 46 years.

3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed its objection contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Alto Car and accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant-rider of the motorcycle. It is also contended that the driver of the Maruti Alto Car had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident.

4. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,67,200/- to the appellant on the following heads:

5. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant-appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel, Smt.V.Vidya Iyer for appellant and learned counsel, Sri Suresh S Gundi for respondent No.2-insurer. Perused the entire appeal papers including trial court records.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the appellant-claimant injured at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Learned counsel would submit that, in the absence of the material to establish income, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the claimant-appellant notionally placing reliance on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Learned counsel would submit that in terms of the chart prepared by the the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income to be taken for accidents of the year 2018 is Rs. 11,750/-. Therefore, she prays that the income of the claimant-appellant be assessed at Rs. 11,750/- per month.

8. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal without there being any material on record, fastened contributory negligence of 50% on the claimant-appellant, which is wholly erroneous. Learned counsel would submit that there is no material whatsoever to establish that the claimant-appellant was negligent in his driving and due to his negligence, the accident has taken place.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that only on the ground that the appellant had no valid and effective licence to drive the two- wheeler, the Tribunal has presumed that the appellant was negligent in driving and fastened 50% contributory negligence on the claimant-appellant. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the said finding and to fasten the entire liability on the insurer.

10. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri Suresh S Gundi for insurer would not dispute the notional income to be assessed at Rs. 11,750/- in terms of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. However, learned counsel would submit that admittedly the appellant- claimant had no licence to drive two-wheeler as on the date of accident and non-possessing of the licence itself is negligence on the part of the appellant rider of the motorcycle.

11. Further, learned counsel would submit that the accident is head-on-collision as observed by the Tribunal and when there is head-on-