The claimant-labourer, whose right leg above the

knee amputed, is before this Court not being satisfied with

the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment

and award dated 23.03.2018 in M.V.C. No.2478/2016 on

the file of learned VI Addl. District Judge & Addl. MACT,

Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’), praying for enhancement of

compensation.

2.

The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition

under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation

for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that

occurred on 08.10.2016 involving Motorcycle bearing

registration No.MH-12-EJ-7663 and Maruti Swift Car

bearing registration No.MH-08-AG-1905. It is stated that

the appellant/claimant was aged 55 years as on the date

of the accident and earning Rs.600/- per day by doing

- 3 -

coolie work and he was contributing the same to his

family. It is stated that as the claimant suffered

amputation of right leg above the knee, there is

permanent disability to an extent of 100% and the

appellant/claimant is not in a position to earn his

livelihood.

3.

On issuance of notice, Respondents No.1 and 2

appeared through their respective counsels and filed

separate statement of objections denying the entire

averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.1

contended that due to negligence on the part of the

claimant, accident took place. Respondent No.2-Insurance

Company contended that the accident took place solely

due to the negligence on the part of rider of the

motorcycle in question. It was further contended that

rider of the motorcycle in question was not having valid

and effective driving license and he was carrying three

persons on two wheeler, thereby violated terms and

- 4 -

conditions of policy. Hence, sought for dismissal of the

claim petition.

4.

Before

the

Tribunal,

claimant/appellant

examined himself as PW1 and examined one doctor as

PW2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20.

Respondents examined one witness as RW1 and got

marked insurance policy as Ex.R1. The Tribunal on

appreciation of the material on record awarded a total

compensation of Rs.12,25,280/- with interest at 6% per

annum from the date of petition till date of realization on

the following heads:

Pain and suffering & Trauma

Rs.1,50,000/-

Food & nourishment charges

Rs. 4,000/-

Attendant charges

Rs. 3,000/-

Traveling Expenses

Rs. 3,000/-

Medical expenses

Rs. 10,000/-

Future medical expenses

Rs. 50,000/-

Loss of future income due to disability

Rs.8,50,080/-

Loss of earning during laid up period

Rs. 55,200/-

Loss of amenities

Rs.1,00,000/-

------------------

Total

Rs.12,25,280/-

------------------

5.

While awarding the above compensation, the

Tribunal assessed notional income of the claimant/injured

- 5 -

at Rs.8,000/- per month, added 15% towards future

prospects, applied multiplier of '11' and assessed the

disability of the injured at 70% to the whole body. Not

being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the

claimant is before this Court praying for enhancement of

compensation.

6.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Umesh C Ainapur, for

the appellant and Sri. Nagaraj C Kolloori, learned counsel

for respondent-Insurer and perused the appeal papers

along with original records.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

would vehemently submit that the Tribunal committed an

error in assessing monthly income of the claimant at

Rs.8,000/-, inasmuch as he was working as Labourer and

earning Rs.600/- per day. He further submits that the

Tribunal atleast ought to have assessed the income of the

claimant at Rs.8,750/- per month, taking note of the chart

prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the

minimum wage fixed. It is his submission that the claimant

- 6 -

suffered amputation above the knee, therefore, the

Tribunal ought to have considered 100% disability and

ought to have assessed loss of earning capacity at 100%.

Learned counsel would submit that taking note of the

injuries sustained and the treatment taken by th