THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3238/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.09.2017 passed in M.V.C. No.3238/2013 by the XXI A.C.M.M and XXIII A.S.C.J, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), (for short 'Tribunal') seeking for higher compensation.

Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the injured-appellant. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of PW-1 and other medical records. It is further submitted that the functional disability of the appellant-claimant is required to be calculated at 100% as he is unable to perform any activity. It is also submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LALAN D. AND ANOTHER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. , 2020 ACJ 2517 and the decision of this Court in the case of MANJUNATH Vs. SUNIL AND ANOTHER , 2023 ACJ 490. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

Per contra, Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1/insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied as he is not a treating doctor and he has assessed the disability in the year 2016 i.e. 3 years after the accident. It is submitted that the Tribunal, considering the evidence has awarded compensation under all other heads, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records.

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

The records indicate that the injured-claimant was walking on Bannerghatta Road near Government school, Weaver's Colony. At that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-R-2541 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed the injured-claimant causing grievous injuries. The injured-claimant was treated at the NIMHANS hospital and thereafter shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru. The injured-claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the permanent disability and the loss of the livelihood caused to him. The injured- claimant examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The respondents neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing the arguments and analyzing the material on record, proceeded to award the compensation of Rs.12,97,600/- along with interest at 8% p.a under various heads.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.8000/- per month. Though the claimant asserted that he was a stone dresser by vocation and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., but no cogent material was placed before the Tribunal to prove the same. Hence, the income assessed by the Tribunal is as per the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA, which is just and proper and does not call for any modification.

Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the same at 73.95% to the whole body and awarded a compensation of Rs.9