This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment and award dated 04.09.2015 passed by

the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumakuru in

MVC No.91/2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. In the motor vehicle accident which occurred on

30.10.2014 at 8.30 am on Hosakerepalya Village, Hiriyur

Taluk where the petitioner, a pedestrian was hit by a

motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-16-EB-4473 came at high

speed and rashly and negligently dashed against the

petitioner and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It

is claimed that the petitioner was aged 35 years and an

3

agriculturist by profession who also used to vend milk.

Petitioner claimed income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The

injury to the spine has rendered the petitioner to the state

of a quadriplegic. The claim petition filed against the

owner and insurer of the motorcycle was allowed in part,

awarding compensation of Rs.17,75,000/- along with

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

payment.

4. The tribunal awarded the compensation under the

following heads:

Sl.

No.

Heads of Compensation

Amount

(Rs.)

1.

Pain and suffering

50,000/-

2.

Medical expenses, conveyance,

nourishing food and attendant

charges

3,50,000/-

3.

Loss of income during the laid-

up period

21,000/-

4.

Loss

of

income

due

to

permanent disability

13,44,000/-

5.

Loss

of

amenities

and

unhappiness

10,000/-

Total

17,75,000/-

5. The claimant is in appeal challenging the

judgment and award dated 04.09.2015 in MVC 91/2015 on

4

the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT,

Tumakuru.

6. The records would reveal that the claimant has

sustained the following injuries:

(a) Sensations absent in hands and legs

(b) Swelling in Right and Left wrist

(c) Abrasions in the left leg

(d) C6 and C7 traumatic spondylosis

cervical cord injury with quadriplegia.

7. The disability certificate - Ex.P.17 issued by the

doctor would reveal that the claimant has sustained 100%

disability to the whole body. The relevant portion of Ex.P.

17 - disability certificate would read as under:

1. Disability of lower limbs - 100% in both

2. Disability of lower upper limbs -90% in both

3. Disability due to memory loss - 100%

4. Disability due to bladder involvement - 100 %

Total body disability due to the cervical spinal cord

injury is 100% as per the guidelines issued by Ministry

of Social Justice and Empowerment, GOI 2001, June

13.

8. To prove the disability, the doctor was examined

as PW3. On appreciation of evidence, the tribunal has

considered disability at 100%. This finding is not in

dispute and is accepted by the owner and insurer.

5

9. The question before this Court is, "Whether the

compensation awarded under various heads is just and

proper or is required to be enhanced?"

10.

The learned counsel for the appellant in

support of his contention would urge that the disability

suffered by the claimant without any evidence would

indicate that the claimant needs assistance throughout his

life for every activity. The tribunal erred in not taking

future prospects into account while calculating the loss of

income. Though the claimant claimed Rs.20,000.00 per

month as his income, even in the absence of authentic

proof relating to the said claim, the materials on record

would demonstrate that the claimant had an income of at

least Rs.12,000.00 per month and the award passed by

the tribunal taking income at Rs.7000/- per month is

wholly unjustified.

11.

It

is

further

urged

that

the

award

of

Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and

6

Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities is grossly

inadequate.

12.

It is further contended that the tribunal has not

taken into account the future expenses owing to disability.

In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the

appellant would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of KAJAL V/S. JA