The court reaffirmed the necessity of accurately assessing income and disability for fair compensation in personal injury claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 2^nd January 2017, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl.M.A.C.T., Kundapura, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.945/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 19.11.2014, at about 5.30 p.m., the claimant was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-L-6489 as a pillion rider from Hale-Alive side towards Koteshwara and one Suresh Poojary, (who was the claimant in the connected MVC.No.943/2014) was riding the said motorcycle. When they reached near Old Ice-plant, Koteshwara village, Kundapura Taluk, a Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-20-B-8385 (offending vehicle), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, claimant fell down and sustained fracture of left patella. She took treatment as an inpatient in Chinmayi Hospital. She has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. She has also contended that she was a coolie and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.17,15,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both the respondents have filed their respective written statements denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and respondent No.2- insurance company denied its liability to pay the compensation.

With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

6. The claimant to prove her case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 10 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-22 (out of the, Exs.P-16 to P-22 are pertaining to this case). Respondent No.2 examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of compensation:

Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that insurance company has filed an appeal in MFA.No.2874/2017 before this Court challenging its liability to pay the compensation. The said matter was heard by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and vide judgment dated 24^th January 2020, this Court dismissed the said appeal. The copy of the said judgment is placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant for reference. This fact is not disputed by the respondent No.2-insurance company.

10. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the amount of compensation awarded under the heads, pain and suffering, loss of income during laid up period, loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability and loss of amenities, are on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- per month, which was not disputed by the respondents and hence, prayed to enhance the compensation.