JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 25.11.2016 in M.V.C.No.769/2014 by Itinerate Court of the Senior Civil Judge & XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli.

3. The appellant met with an accident on 25.09.2013 at about 12.30 p.m. while traveling in Mahindra ALFA auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-44-5270 which met with an accident with an offending vehicle TATA ACE bearing No.KA-06-B-2149 coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained injuries of lacerated wound over the right leg, fracture of both bones of right leg and swelling of right leg upper 6x6 c.m., she was treated in the hospital for seven days. Later she was examined by PW-2, who assessed her disability. It was found that there was deformity in the right leg, multiple abrasion over the both knee joints and abnormal mobility of right leg which showed fracture of both bones also. It was opined that the petitioner cannot run fast, stand for long time etc., and has to depend upon others for her routine work. It was also opined that there is a disability of

37% on account of the injuries sustained to the lower limbs.

4. The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence, has assessed the functional disability of the petitioner at 20%. By holding that the petitioner has not established the income of `10,000/- per month which was claimed, the notional income was adopted to the extent of `4,500/- per month and loss of future income was calculated at `1,40,400/-, Tribunal has awarded a sum of `33,000/- under the head pain and suffering, `4,280/- towards medical expenses, `5,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges and awarded a total compensation of `1,82,680/-.

5. Challenging the said quantum, the petitioner has approached this Court in appeal.

6. On going through the evidence on record as well as giving my anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, it is found that the income of the appellant as on the date of accident taken at `4,500/- needs interference by this Court. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority in respect of settlement of the cases before the Lokadalat shows that the notional income for the accidents of year 2013 is a prescribed at `8,000/- per month. In umpteen number of cases this Court has held that the said guidelines are generally in conformity with the wages prescribed under Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, I do not find any reason to deviate such guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the settlement of the dispute before the Lokadalat. Hence, the income of the claimant is taken at `8,000/- per month. 7. As a consequence, the loss of future income is calculated as `8,000x12x20%x13 =`2,49,600/- by adopting a multiplier of 13 for the age of 44 years. Thus the enhancement under this head would come to `1,09,200/-

8. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining heads do not require any interference by this Court as they are just, proper and adequate. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of `1,09,200/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following order:- ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii. The petitioner/appellant is entitled for compensation of `1,09,200/- in addition to compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit before the Tribunal.

iii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to that extent.

iv. Rest of the conditions with regard to deposit etc., as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.