In motor accident compensation claims, where proof of actual income is absent, the court shall determine notional income based on official legal services guidelines, and future prospects must be calculated relative to the injured person's age to ensure just and fair compensation.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.239/15 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES & MACT, MYSURU, 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:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 06.10.2016 passed in MVC No.239/15 on the file of the Judge, Principal Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru, for enhancing the compensation.

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

3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 31.07.2014 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.16,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,53,789/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

4. Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that he sustained grievous injuries and spent huge amounts towards medical expenses. He was earning Rs.20,000 to Rs. 25,000 per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking his income as Rs.5,000/- and the amounts granted by the Tribunal under the other heads are meager. As per the evidence of PW2, appellant sustained 40% disability. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent stated that the tribunal rightly considered the disability as 13% and further stated that future prospects was taken as 50% and it can be modified to 40%.

6. Petitioner stated that he was doing Writer work at R.M.C. Bandipalya, Mysuru and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But he has not filed any income proof, though he filed IT returns, the Tribunal observed that there is no source of income and not relied upon them. In the absence of any proof of income, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 25 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘18’. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate and Ex.P7 is the discharge summary and petitioner also examined PW2 doctor. The petitioner sustained fracture of tibia and communitted fracture of distal 1/3rd of fibula and lacerated wound on the left upper one third of the left leg. Injuries are grevious in nature. Doctor assessed the disability as 40%, 1/3rd of the same comes to 13% and the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability as 13%. This court finds no reason to interfere with the disability assessed by the doctor. Tribunal granted future prospects at the rate of 50%. As the petitioner was aged 25 years, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. The loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.8,500 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 13% = Rs.3,34,152/-. The Petitioner was admitted in the hospital for a period of 7 days. The Tribunal had granted Rs.98,189/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- per transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 4 months. Therefore, Rs. 8,500 x 4 = Rs.34,000/-is granted towards loss o