Court modified compensation awarded by the tribunal based on notional income and assessed damages due to injury.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This M.F.A. is filed against the award of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.5924/2013 dated 26.10.2015. The claimant filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.12,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on Rs.12,25,000/- (excluding future medical expense).

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and was hospitalised as inpatient. He examined P.W.2 doctor in this regard. The learned counsel contend that the amount granted under the head pain and suffering is meagre and his notional income was taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. The doctor has stated the disability as 30%, but the Tribunal erred in taking the same as 20%. The amounts granted under other heads like attendant charges, conveyance and loss of amenities are meagre. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation with interest at 12% per annum.

4. Heard the arguments of both the sides.

5. The petitioner sustained the following injuries as per Ex.P.6 wound certificate:

(a) communited fracture of (R) mid clavicle, (b) displaced fracture of (R) 2^nd rib, (c) contusion or laceration or an infarct related to right renal artery.

6. As per the wound certificate, first injury is grievous in nature and he was hospitalised for 31 days. The petitioner was aged about 28 years working as an agriculturist and vegetable vendor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as on the date of the accident, but no income proof is produced before the Tribunal. The petitioner examined P.W.2 doctor. As per the evidence of P.W.2, he was hospitalised for 31 days. P.W.2 stated as follows:

“Mr. Manjunath aged about 30 years, met with a RTA on 21.09.2013 and got admitted in this Hospital. In the said RTA the patient sustained Blunt Trama Abdomen and Right Clavicul fracture displaced fracture 2^nd lift Rif left transvers prosser of L1 and L2 at liver Lacention, injury to the right ear pinna. He was treated surgically by Exploratory Laparotomy with suture of Liver Laceration and transfused 8 units of packed cells 4 units platelets and 16 fresh Frozen Plasma and got discharged on 22.10.2013. He came to me on 24.11.2014 for disability assessment, grievous pains Ugly surgical scar over by Abdomen pain in the Right Shoulder pain, in the low back pain, cannot lift heavy articles and work life before.

On Examination: dark thick surgical scar over the abdomen arch shaped and another surgical scar near right abdomen tenderness over the low back at L1 L2 level, cannot lift move than 10 kgs weight I am of the opinion that the patient has suffered 30%

disability for the low back as per the guidelines.”

7. P.W.2 has stated that there is permanent physical impairment to the lower back at the rate of 30%, but in the cross examination he admitted that he has not assessed the whole body disability and it only pertains to limbs.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner has not examined any spine surgeon to assess the disability of spinal fracture and as such the Tribunal rightly considered the disability as 20% and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the disability.

9. The Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner met with an accident on 21.09.2013 and therefore this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month as per the guidelines of the Karnataka Stat