JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 06.11.2012 in M.V.C.No.318/2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-II and M.A.C.T., Hassan ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 26.09.2011 at about 07:30 pm near M.C.F. Quarters of Dasara Koppalu, Hassan the petitioner being a pedestrian, was hit by a goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-13/A- 4859, consequently the petitioner sustained the injuries. He was treated at Mangala Hospital, Hassan under hospitalization. The petitioner claiming that he is an Agriculturist and Milk Vendor, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, approached the tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with 12%

interest p.a. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after holding enquiry and hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as follows:-

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Pain and agony	25,000
2	Expenses towards medicine including nourishment, attendant and travelling charges	25,000
3	Loss of future earning capacity	97,920
4	Loss of income during treatment/rest	10,000
5	For unhappy	10,000
6	Future medical expenses (no interest)	15,000
	Total	1,82,920

Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard the arguments of Smt. Budrunnisa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.C.

Betsur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has suffered multiple fractures with right knee dislocation; medical evidence is placed before the Tribunal to explain the disability; though the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.4,000/- notionally; compensation awarded under different heads is inadequate; though medical bills has been produced to an extent of Rs.87,811/-, same is not considered by the Tribunal and she sought for enhancement.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability having regard to the fractures; the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove his income at Rs.15,000/- earned out of agriculture and milk vending. Learned counsel is fair enough that loss of future earnings may be re-assessed, nominal enhancement may be given and there is no reason to enhance the compensation under other heads and he supported impugned judgment.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the records.

8. The material on record points out that there was an accident involving the petitioner and the Goods Auto, injuring the petitioner and he sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of right tibial condyle, right knee dislocation, right extensor tendon injury and fracture of right femoral condyle. PW-2/Dr. Abdul Basheer is the treated doctor who is also an Orthopedic Surgeon. According to him, limb disability sustained by the petitioner is 35%. He has also made assessment of Rs.45,000/- required for future treatment. The Tribunal considered the evidence and assessed whole body disability at 12%. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,000/-.

But, in the year 2011 an Agriculturist or a Coolie with no proof of income will earn not less than Rs.6,500/-, hence notional income of the petitioner has to be considered at Rs.6,500/-.

9. As seen from the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has not considered the Medical Bills produced by the petitioner as per Exs.P9 and P10. On calculation of bills produced, it comes to Rs.87,811/-. The petitioner was under hospitalization at Mangala Hospital for a period of 10 days. He was attended by an attendant, travelled to the hospital, spent money towards food and nourishment. Hence compensation has to be assessed under each head.

10. If the income o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document