In motor accident compensation cases, the court can modify contributory negligence percentage and reassess disability based on medical evidence, and notional income is determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 22.01.2020 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru City, SCH-14 (for short, the 'Tribunal'), in M.V.C. Nos.4944/2017 and 4943/2017, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.06.2017, at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioners, after completing their duty at EMC2 DELL Company, Mahadevapura, Nekkundi, were proceeding towards Hosakote on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03/HT-371. When they reached near the service road after crossing Lanco Toll, Hosakote, the driver of a Toyota Etios car bearing Reg. No. KA-53/C-3856 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners' motorcycle. As a result, both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to Srinivasa Specialty Hospital, Hosakote, where they took treatment as in-patients and underwent several operations. Subsequently, they lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and later filed claim petitions before the Tribunal, i.e., M.V.C. No. 4944/2017 filed by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 2692/2020 and M.V.C. No. 4943/2017 filed by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 3923/2023, as stated supra.

4. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the petitioners and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,200/- in M.V.C.No.4943/2017 and Rs.4,25,320/- in M.V.C.No.4944/2017. Aggrieved by the same and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, both the claimants have preferred these appeals.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company in both the appeals.

6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under different heads, particularly under the heads of 'pain and suffering' and 'medical expenses'. According to him, although the claimant in M.V.C. No.4944/2017 produced medical bills amounting to Rs.1,37,396/-, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in attributing 15% contributory negligence to the petitioners in both the claim petitions. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability at 12% and 8%, respectively, in the two cases, despite the evidence of PW.2 - Doctor, as well as the medical records and X-ray reports marked as Exs.P9 to P12 in both the cases. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing both the appeals and enhancing the compensation awarded.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company in both the cases vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellants and submitted that, upon a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly fixed 15% contributory negligence on the claimants in their respective claim petitions and also awa