The court has the power to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal if it finds that the compensation is inadequate.

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement

of the compensation.

2.

The undisputed facts are that the claimant has

sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred

on 08.09.2015 at about 5.15 p.m., near Banashankari Bus

stop when the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-614 dashed

against him. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

seeking compensation.

3.

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused

the material on record.

- 3 -

4.

The Tribunal has granted the compensation

under various heads as follows:

Sl.No.

Particulars

Amount (in.Rs.)

Towards

loss

of

earning

capacity and future income

97,920.00

2.

Towards pain and suffering

50,000.00

3.

Towards loss of amenities in

life

25,000.00

4.

Towards medical expenses

49,900.00

5.

Towards

future

medical

expenses and loss of marital

life

50,000.00

6.

Towards loss of income during

laid up period

18,000.00

7.

Towards

conveyance,

attendant charges, food and

nourished food.

20,000.00

Total

3,10,820.00

5.

The medical records, which included the wound

certificate, discharge summary and case sheet, as well as

the doctor's testimony, established that the claimant had

suffered a fracture of the right interior pubic rami, a crush

- 4 -

with degloving injury on the right foot, and a uretral

injury. The said injuries are grievous in nature. The

claimant was admitted to the hospital two times. Due to

the accidental injuries, the claimant has also suffered

erectile dysfunction, which is affecting his marital life and

he is unable to resume normal sexual activity. Therefore,

considering the nature of injuries sustained as discussed

above, the quantum of compensation awarded under the

head 'pain and suffering' is on the lower side. Therefore,

the same is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-.

6.

The compensation granted by the Tribunal

under the head 'medical expenses' is as per the actual

medical bills produced by the claimant. Therefore, the

same is kept in tact.

7.

The claimant is a Painter by profession and is

26 years old. The claimant is unmarried. The claimant has

suffered a fracture of the interior pubic rami on the right, a

crush with degloving injury on the right and a urethral

- 5 -

injury. The doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered erectile dysfunction as a result of an

accidental injury affecting his marital life. The doctor has

given his opinion regarding physical disability only in the

orthopedic aspect and stated that injuries caused to the

urethral part of the body that affect the claimant's normal

sexual activity and his entire marriage prospects in life

cannot be assessed. But the Tribunal has taken disability

at 8% which is on the lesser side. Therefore, what the

doctor stated about the percentage of the physical

disability at 16% is to be considered for both the urethral

injury and the orthopedic fracture caused to the claimant.

Therefore,

the

functional

disability

is

taken

into

consideration at 16%, considering the nature of injuries

and disability sustained and the profession of the claimant,

as he was doing work as a painter by following the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ 1(SC).

The accident was occurred in the year 2015. Therefore,

- 6 -

the notional income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. is taken into

consideration as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal

Service Authority. As the claimant was aged 27 years, the

appropriate multiplier applicable is '17'. Therefore, the

'loss of future income due to disability' is hereby

re-assessed and quantified as under:

Rs.9000 x 16/100 x 17 x 12 = Rs.2,93,760/-

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,93,760/- is awarded

under the head 'loss of future income due to disability'.

8.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the

claimant at least for a period of four months might not

have attended the work as Painter that is to be

compensated.