The court ruled that the initial compensation for severe injuries was grossly inadequate and enhanced it significantly to address the claimant's needs.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 07.12.2022 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC no.797/2019, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 06.02.2019 at about 3:30 p.m., when claimant along with others was traveling in Maxicab bearing registration no.KA-32/3933 to go to Chitguppa, driver of lorry bearing registration no.MH-12/KP-1601 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Maxicab. In said accident, claimant sustained fracture of left hand (shaft of humerus), fracture of 5^th and 9^th ribs and injuries to right leg resulting in amputation of right leg above knee level and other injuries. Despite taking treatment at Government Hospital, Chitguppa, GIMS, Kalaburagi and United Hospital, Kalaburagi, he sustained physical disability. Alleging loss of earning capacity, he had filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of offending lorry.

3. On contest, wherein only insurer opposed claim petition by filing objections, denying entire claim petition averments and alleging violation of terms and conditions of policy, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW-1, Dr.Raju Kulkarni as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 12. Insurer examined its official as RW-1 and did not get marked any documents.

4. On consideration, tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured lorry by its driver and claimant sustained permanent disability and lost earning capacity, due to same tribunal held insurer liable to pay compensation of Rs.16,80,549, awarded as under:

5. Not satisfied, claimant was in appeal. It was submitted, though, claimant had sustained grievous fractures and right leg amputation, tribunal awarded inadequate compensation of Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering. It was submitted on account of amputation, claimant would have undergone substantial period of lay off and award of Rs.39,750/- towards same would be inadequate. Tribunal did not add future prospects to monthly income and even, assessment of loss of earning capacity is on lower side. It was submitted that PW-2 had assessed claimant’s limb disability and whole body disability at 85%, but tribunal considered functional disability at only 40%, which was inadequate. Likewise, awards for incidental expenses and loss of amenities were also low and sought for enhancement.

6. On other hand, Sri Subash Mallapur, learned counsel for insurer, opposed appeal. It was submitted that tribunal had taken note of injuries and awarded just compensation, leaving no scope for enhancement and sought for dismissal.

7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award.

8. From above, since it is only claimant’s appeals for enhancement of compensation, while insurer has accepted award, point for consideration is:

“Whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as sought for?”

9. Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons.

10. Occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured lorry, causing permanent disability and loss of earning capacity and insurer’s liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. Claimant is seeking enhancement on limited grounds. Claimant sustained fracture of left hand (shaft of humerus), fracture of 5^th and 9^th ribs and amputation of right leg above knee level and other injuries. Same would be major fracture and taking not of fact that claimant has sustained amputation, award of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering is grossly ina