The court confirmed that compensation in personal injury cases must be justly reflective of actual earnings and the impact of disability, not based on inflated assumptions.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

1. MFA No. 103636/2018 and MFA Crob.100135/2018 arise out of judgment and award dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1597/2017.

2. The Insurer - respondent No.2 filed MFA No.103636/2018 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and claimant filed MFA Crob.No.100135/2018 for enhancement of compensation. Hence both the matters arise out of common judgment and award hence both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2016 around 11.40 p.m. (noon), claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EU-9581 and going towards Channamma Circle in Belagavi and one Basavaraj (who was petitioner in MFA No.1598/2017) was a pillion. They met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/C-2635. As a result of which claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment in Vijaya Hospital at Belagavi and spent around Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was a computer operator working in Veer Sainath Chits (Karnataka) Pvt.Ltd. and earning Rs.8000/- per month and he was also working in another organization and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Totally he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to injury sustained in the accident he has been suffering from permanent disability of 20% to the right hip joint, 15% to the left hip joint and 20% to the whole body due to fracture of lumbar spine. With these reasons he prayed to award compensation.

5. Insurer in its written statement denied the contentions of the claim petitioner and it is further stated that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the claimant and amount of compensation sought is on higher side. It is also further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by driver of the offending tipper lorry. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

6. The Tribunal on the rival contentions of the parties framed necessary issues.

7. The Tribunal clubbed MVC No.1597/2017 and MVC No.1598/2017 and recorded common evidence.

8. Claimant in both the cases examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25 and closed the evidence. Respondent No.2 marked one document as Ex.R1.

9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, awarded following amount of compensation:

Pain the suffering :Rs.1,20,000.00 Loss of amenities :Rs. 50,000.00 Loss of future income :Rs.5,18,400.00 Loss of income during laid up period :Rs. 36,000.00 Medical expenses :Rs.1,82,504.00 Attendant charges and misc.expenses :Rs. 35,000.00 Total :Rs.9,41,904.00

10. Insurer found that the said amount of compensation awarded was highly excessive and not just and reasonable and claimant contends that the said amount of compensation awarded is inadequate. Therefore both of them challenged the said judgment and award.

11. Heard the arguments of learned advocates for both the sides.

12. The learned advocate for Insurer vehemently contends that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment held that claimant has not produced any document to show that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and it assessed notional income of the claimant