ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 01.10.2015 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in MVC No.17 of 2014.

2. The injured claimant, aged 42 years, met with an accident on 29.09.2012, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.10,91,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that the Tribunal granted meagre amount under the other heads and the Tribunal ought to have granted more than Rs.25,000/- towards cost of artificial limb, as it required periodical replacement and it could not be less than Rs.1,00,000/-, and even that has to be replaced once in 5 years. It is contended that the claimant was aged 42 years at the time of accident, so he requires artificial limb replacement several times during his life time. The income should have been taken more than Rs.6,000/- per month as he was an agriculturist and the accident was of the year 2012.

4. The petitioner stated that he was an agriculturalist earning Rs.20,000/- per month but he has not filed any income proof to that effect. As he met with an accident in the year 2012, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the relevant multiplier is 14.

5. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the claimant has not examined the treated doctor. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the just compensation and this Court need not be interfered with.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. Exhibit P6 is wound certificate and Exhibits P8 and P9 are discharge summaries and Exhibit P14 is out patient details from Victoria hospital and other relevant medical records are filed. Exhibit P6-wound certificate shows that the claimant suffered segmental fracture femur degloving injury right knee, degloving injury right leg, compound fracture metatarsal right foot. Injured has undergone operation for injuries with CRIF. Wound debridement has been done. Amputation foot was also done. The claimant was inpatient in hospital from 29.09.2012 to 22.10.2012. He was again admitted to hospital on 01.11.2012 to 23.11.2012 as per Exhibit P.9.

8. The doctor assessed permanent disability as 42.5% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal has taken the functional disability as 50% as it is a case of amputation. This Court finds it reasonable to take 50% disability taken by the Tribunal. Since the disability is more than 20%, the claimant is entitled for future prospects as per the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul, son of Mehaboob Tahasildar and Others (M.F.A. No.103807/2016 c/w. M.F.A. No.103835/2016 decided on 27.05.2022). Therefore, as the claimant was aged 42 years, the future prospects is taken at 25%. Thus, the loss for future earning capacity comes to Rs.7,35,000/- (7,000+25% x 12 x 14 x 50%). He was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 46 days. The Tribunal already granted Rs.2,77,200/- towards medical expenses and this Court confirms the same. The claimant might not have attended to any other work at least for a period of 5 months due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, Rs.35,000/- (7,000 x 5) is granted towards loss of earning during the laid up period. Rs.1,00,000/- is granted for cost of artificial limb instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award of compensation granted under the other heads by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need to infer with said amount. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.13,62,200/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.10,91,