The assessment of disability and loss of income in motor vehicle accident claims must align with established legal principles to ensure just compensation.

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1761/2015 by the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. Sri.R.P.Somashekaraiah and Smt.Geetha.M.R, learned counsels for the appellant submit that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income and disability of the claimant as no compensation is awarded under the head of loss of income due to disability. It is submitted that the Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record has awarded a meagre compensation under all the other heads, which is required to be enhanced. Hence, they seek to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment and award, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

6. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

7. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that on 16.08.2015 at 3.30 p.m. on B.M.Road near Kodibelagula gate, Channarayapatna Taluk, a car bearing Reg.No.KA-13-N-3891, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a TVS moped bearing Reg.No.KA-51-EL-6536, as a result of which, the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (for short 'MV Act'). In the said petition, the appellant examined witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P23. The respondents did not examine any witness but got marked Ex.R1-copy of Insurance policy. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record proceeded to pass the impugned order granting of Rs.9,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

8. The oral testimony of the claimant as well as PW-2 indicate that the appellant sustained open comminuted fracture distal 1/3^rd of both bones of right leg with type 3 degloving injury on the same leg. The appellant was hospitalized from 16.08.2015 to 30.09.2015 and he was operated on 17.08.2015 for wound debridement and temporary fixation of external fixator. Despite the same, the whole lower 1/3^rd of tibia exposed and hence, cross leg flap insitu was done 21.08.2015 by plastic surgery. However, despite all these treatments, the wound infection persisted. PW-2 - Doctor has further deposed that repeated wound debridement was done on 20.08.2015, 22.08.2015, 26.08.2015 and 31.08.2015 with cross-leg flap insitu. He also deposed that the claimant was advised for Llizarov fixator for bone graft, however, the bone was not united and hence, the injured-claimant was readmitted on 05.12.2015 and was discharged on 18.12.2015. It was also deposed that the claimant was once again admitted on 26.04.2016 and a limb was fixed with Llizarov fixator for union of fracture and he was discharged on 28.06.2016 with an advise to turn the bolt of fixture, dress wounds and review once a week. The records indicate that the claimant was again admitted on 18.01.2017 and was treated till 03.03.2017 and as per the evidence of the doctor, the T