JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 23.02.2012 in MVC.No.668/2010 passed by the District Judge, Addl. MACT II, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive one.

2. The factum of accident is not in dispute.

3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company submitted that respondent No.1-claimant was examined as P.W.2 on 29.08.2011 and it is stated in the judgment that Ex.P.139 – disability certificate is marked, but the said disability certificate is dated 30.12.2011. Therefore, expressed exclamation that as to how disability certificate dated 30.12.2011 has come into light when much prior to that on 29.08.2011, the claimant was examined. Therefore, submitted that insofar as nature of injuries sustained and disability is concerned, the claimant has played fraud.

Therefore, prays to reduce the quantum of compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

6. From the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant had sustained segmental fracture of right leg femur and other injuries. This segmental fracture of right leg femur is grievous in nature. The doctor-C.W.1 has not deposed that the claimant had suffered 50% of physical disability, but the Tribunal has assessed the percentage of physical disability at 50% without any evidence. Therefore, this is to be interfered with. The doctor-C.W.1 had not deposed anything regarding as to how much percentage of disability suffered by the claimant. Ex.P.139 is stated to be the disability certificate issued by the doctor, which is dated 30.12.2011, but it is much prior to that on 29.08.2011 the claimant is examined as P.W.2.

7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is right as to how it is possible the disability certificate to be marked in the evidence given by the claimant who was examined as P.W.2 on 29.08.2011, when the disability certificate is dated 30.12.2011. Further more, as above discussed, the doctor has not stated anything regarding how much percentage of disability is suffered by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has not applied its mind in assessing the disability at 50% and awarding compensation accordingly. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded under the head loss of future income due to disability is to be modified and re-

assessed.

8. The claimant was aged about 26 years being a goldsmith. The evidence on record proves that the claimant had sustained segmental fracture of right leg femur. For such fracture of right leg femur, assessing 50% of functional disability without any evidence is exorbitant and excessive one. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained and profession of the claimant, it is just and proper to hold the functional disability at 8% affecting the work of the claimant as a goldsmith. The accident was caused in the year 2009, therefore, in absence of proof of income of the claimant, notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month is to be taken into consideration as per the Notional Income Chart recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. As the claimant was aged 26 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is “17”. Therefore, the compensation under the head loss of future income due to disability is re-assessed and quantified as follows:

Rs.5,000/- x 8% x 17 x 12=Rs.81,600/-

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.81,600/- is awarded under the head loss of future income due to disability.

9. The quantum of compensation awarded under other heads is found to be just and proper and correct. Therefore, the same are kept in tact.

10. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to total compensation determined by this Court as follows: