The court upheld that compensation must comprehensively consider suffering, disability, and future earning capacity to ensure just compensation following a motor vehicle accident.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.3485/2016 dated 17.03.2020 by the IX Addl. Small causes Judge and ACMM, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.5,23,889/-, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 09.04.2016 at about 3.30 pm., the claimant along with his friends travelling in car from Tirupathi to Bangalore, when the said car reached near Ashoka Leyland Company, near Lakshmaiahkandriga village, on Bangalore-Chittor Main road, the driver of the car drove the same with high speed, dashed against the road side tree and due to impact, the claimant and other inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident with the help of public he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittor, wherein he took first aid and then he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below:

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that when the doctor had deposed that the disability is 30.05%, the Tribunal had failed to grant the compensation under the head of loss of future income. It is submitted that he is working with a chartered accountant and his salary is 20,000/- per month, just because the salary is from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- is increased, that cannot be a ground for the Tribunal not to grant any amount under the head of loss of future income. It is submitted that 30.05% disability to the whole body is a considerable disability which would have a great impact on his future earnings, as he is in a private job there is no security to the said job and basing on that the Tribunal cannot deny the compensation under the said head. It is further submitted that considering the hip dislocation and the fracture and even under the head of pain and suffering also the amount that is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. It is submitted that the claimant was in hospital for 11 days and the Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of Rs.11,000/- towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges. Considering the 30.05% disability of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have granted a reasonable amount towards the loss of amenities. It is further submitted that on all counts the compensation needs to be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly not granted the compensation under the head of loss of future income. It is submitted that as per the evidence of the doctor the fractures are united and his salary is increased from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. When there is no future loss of income, the Tribunal had rightly not granted the amount under the said head. It is submitted that the doctor who has deposed is not a treated doctor. It is submitted that on all other heads, the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for.

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the ma