In motor accident compensation cases where the driver lacks a valid license, the 'pay and recovery' principle allows the insurer to be directed to pay the award to the claimant and subsequently recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

IN MFA NO.6925/2016

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 25.04.2016 passed in MVC Nos.1866/2015 and 1867/2015. However, MFA No.6925/2016 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.1866/2015 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 25.03.2015 and filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation under the other heads. The petitioner/injured was aged 20 years and was working as a mason, earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The petitioner sustained disability to the extent of 38% to the right lower limb and 19% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the disability at 12%. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation and also the rate of interest.

4. Though the petitioner/injured claimant stated that he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2015, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner/injured was aged 20 years and the relevant multiplier is '18'. Ex.P.4 is the wound certificate, which shows that the petitioner sustained the following injury:

"Laceration over right forearm and fracture of right tibia."

5. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.3, who is an orthopedic surgeon. He stated that the petitioner had sustained fracture of right tibia. On examination, he found that there was pain, limping, wasting of (right) thigh and diffuse swelling of (right) leg and foot. As per the recent X-ray, there was united fracture. He assessed the disability of the right lower limb at 38% and that of the whole body at 19%. He further stated that as the petitioner was working as a Mason, it is difficult for him to do any other manual or physical work. This Court finds it reasonable to take 1/3rd of 38% i.e., 13% disability, for the purpose of calculating the loss of future earning capacity. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,52,720/- (9,000x12x18x13%). The petitioner/injured was hospitalized as an inpatient for a period of four days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, his occupation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, Rs.27,000/- (9,000x3) is to be granted under the head loss of income during the laid-up period. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and the said amounts are confirmed.

6. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: