The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on negligence and disability assessment while enhancing compensation to reflect proper justice for severe injuries sustained, reinforcing the importance of evidence in determining claim amounts.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent-insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1830/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 19/10/2019. The respondent herein is the claim petitioner, who filed Cross Objection No.55 of 2021. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 11/01/2016 at about 03:45 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/ER-3294 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner through Magadi – Electronic City road and when they reached near Mylasandra Begur bridge, motorcycle overturned, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent-owner cum rider of the offending motorcycle remained ex-parte.

4. The second respondent-insurer of offending motorcycle filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A24 series were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the second respondent.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,01,65,956/- together with interest along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent- insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal and the cross objection is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged -

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent-insurer that the Tribunal went wrong in including personal allowance of ₹27,218/- as part of the monthly income of the claim petitioner, a gross error committed by the Tribunal and hence the same needs to be rectified. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that Exts.A14 to A20, A23 and 24 and the testimony of PW3 clearly prove the monthly income of the claim petitioner. However, the Tribunal took the average of the salary drawn for a period of about 3 to 4 months and fixed the monthly income. In fact, the monthly income was higher than what has been fixed by the Tribunal. There is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in fixing the amount. If at all there has to be any change, it can only be an increase of the monthly income evidenced by Exts.A14 to A20 and A23 and A24, goes the argument.

9.1. Exts.A14 to A20, A23 and 24 are the pay slips of the claim petitioner. The testimony of PW3 proves the aforesaid documents and therefore the method adopted by the Tribunal in taking the average income of the claim petitioner in fixing the notional income is justified and I do not find any infirmity calling for interference into the same.

Percentage of disability

10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurer that when the doctor as per Ext.A12 certificate has fixed