In motor accident claims, where the claimant fails to provide documentary evidence of income, compensation must be calculated based on the notional income guidelines prescribed by the State Legal Services Authority for the relevant year of the accident.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE IN MVC NO.116 OF 2013 DATED 17.02.2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Holalkere in MVC No.116/2013.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 27.06.2012 at about 12 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16/S-8528 from Padigatte to Chikkandavadi village as a pillion rider, while proceeding near Kothehal Cross, Chickjajur village, in Holalkere taluk, the driver of Republic bus bearing Registration No.KA-17/A-3906 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant from opposite direction. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

Upon service of notices, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed objection statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition with costs and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,42,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation and respondent No.2 being the insurer directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

The claimant asserts that she was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, working as agriculturist. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.6,000/- per month.

The claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 20%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 40% disability to the right upper limb.

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was shifted to P.H.C., Chickjajur for treatment and now also the claimant is taking treatment at various hospital and clinics as per the advice of the doctors including SS Hospital, Davanagere and incurred medical expenses. Due to the impact of the accidental injuries the claimant is unable to attend her agriculture work as she used to attend prior to the date of accident. Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company denied all the petition averments so far as accident, injuries sustained by the claimant and also treatment obtained, medical expenses incurred by claimant by filing objection statement. It has further