Compensation in motor accident claims must be calculated by accurately assessing permanent disability based on medical evidence and incorporating future prospects into the notional income as per the law laid down by the Apex Court.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.295/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & A.M.A.C.T, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the appellant-claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated 28.03.2017, passed in MVC No.295/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

On 26.12.2007, at about 6.30 p.m., when the petitioner was returning from Mevundi village to Hole Itagi village on his motorcycle, the driver of the offending tractor and trailer drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner.

Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was admitted to the City Central Hospital, Davanagere from 26.12.2007 to 20.01.2008 as an inpatient. The doctor advised him for amputation, as such, from 31.03.2008 to 14.04.2008, he again got admitted as an inpatient and on 05.04.2008, his lower part of the right leg was amputated and he became permanently disabled to an extent of 75% to the whole body. It is contended that petitioner was an agriculturist and earning Rs.5,00,000/- p.a. Because of his permanent disability, he could not do day-to-day work without the assistance of third person. It is also contended that he has spent a huge amount towards his treatment. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence. It is contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company as of the date of the accident and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner.

4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claim made by the claimant is exorbitant, and the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

6. The claimant to substantiate his case, the claimant was examined as