Court enhanced compensation for an injured claimant, emphasizing proper assessment of disability and income loss under the MV Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This appeal is filed against the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 26/2014 dated 29.05.2018.

3. Injured claimant filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.6,24,945/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred. 4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that petitioner sustained 5 grievous injuries and was hospitalized for 29 days. The Tribunal granted meager amount as compensation. Petitioner examined P.W.2 and he assessed disability as 55% to the left upper limb. Petitioner was aged 29 years working as Salesman in Cauvery Gas Agency, Bunder, Mangaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.9,000/- per month and multiplier is taken as 16 instead of 17. Learned counsel also requested for enhancing the compensation granted under the head `loss of income during laid up period’. He further submitted that rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is on the right side.

5. Though petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.16,000/- per month, he has not produced any proof of income. The accident occurred on 29.07.2013 and as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority this Court finds it reasonable to take the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- and 40% is to be added towards future prospects.

8000 + 40% = 11200

6. Petitioner was aged 29 years and the multiplier applicable in the instant case is 17.

7. As per the wound certificate petitioner sustained the following injuries:

2 complainant CLW PVM Lt Forehead Degleving injury left upper limb extending from mid arm to distal forearm Dislocation of left elbow and soft tissue loss Left upper limb distal pulse not felt – no finger movement BP 90/60 left elbow chip # of radial head in the X Ray Would decridement – wire fixation Lt elbow done

8. Petitioner was admitted to the hospital for 29 days. P.W.2 assessed the disability as 55% to the left upper limb. The Tribunal has taken 1/3^rd of the same as 18%. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 are discharge summaries and Ex.P.10 is disability certificate. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon the discharge summaries and stated that in fact amputation was suggested to the petitioner and as he was unwilling it was not done to him.

9. In the discharge summary it was observed:

“movement of the hand could not be assessed due to pain, left elbow dislocated with chip and fracture of left radial and crush injury Left UL.”

“The patient and patient party were explained in detail the necessity of an amputation, however, since they were unwilling for the same, a flap reconstruction surgery was performed. It has been explained in detail that the flap reconstruction is meant only as a soft tissue cover and not to improve the hand function.”

10. Considering the nature of injury, period of hospitalization and also the disability assessed by the Doctor, this Court finds it reasonable to assess the disability at 25% instead of 18%. Therefore, loss of future income comes to

11200 X 12 X 17 X 25% = 571200

11. The amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head `pain and suffering’ is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and the amount of compensation granted under the head `loss of amenities’ is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and the amount of compensation granted under the head attendant charges, extra nourishment and transportation is enhanced from Rs.12,600/- to Rs.40,000/-.

12. Amount granted by the Tribunal under the head `loss of income during the laid up period’ is Rs.27,000/-. Petitioner might not have attended the office for 4 months and therefore, loss of income during the laid up period is :

80