The court emphasized that compensation must reflect the true impact of injuries on quality of life and earning capacity, considering all factors including amenities lost and actual income claims.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M.ADIGA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed by the IV Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.331/2018, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Though the matter is slated for admission, with consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

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

5. The brief facts of the case are that, on 08.11.2017, at about 01.00 am (midnight), the claimant met with an accident near Canara Bank, Balemakki, Sulia, due to the rash and negligent driving of a car bearing registration No.KA-19-AA-3062. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

6. Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending car. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay the compensation due to breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

8. The claimant to prove his case, examined 03 witnesses as PWs-1 to 3 and marked 21 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-21. Respondents have not lead any oral or documentary evidence. However, respondent No.2- Insurance Company has marked 01 document as per Ex.R-1.

9. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of compensation:

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; the Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly. The claimant was running a TV and Radio Repair Shop. The licence was produced before the Tribunal to prove the said occupation of the claimant and that he was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has assessed the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month, which is erroneous.

11. It is further contended that PW.3/Doctor in his evidence, assessed the permanent disability to whole body at 36%, but the Tribunal has taken disability at 30% which is erroneous. It is contended that the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the income of the claimant while assessing the compensation. No amount of compensation has been awarded towards 'loss of amenities'. Due to injuries sustained in the incident, he lost several amenities available to a healthy person. It is further argued that the claimant was admitted as an in-patient nearly for 106 days and had taken follow-up treatment. In the evidence of PW.1, he has stated that he had incurred expenses of Rs. 3,000/- as transportation expenses each time to attend the hospital for follow-up treatment, which was not considered by the Tribunal. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant was unable to attend to himself and, therefore, engaged the services of an attendant at a cost of Rs. 500/- per day, which was also not taken into account by the Tribunal. For these reasons, he prayed to enhance the compensation amount.

12. Learned counsel