The judgment establishes that a person’s income and disability must be accurately assessed to determine fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Leave granted. I.A. No.177122/2022 for production of additional documents is allowed.

2. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal in M.V.C. No.914 of 2008 sought for enhancement by filing an Appeal under S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”) in M.F.A. No.6365 of 2009 before the High Court of Karnataka, whereunder the compensation of Rs.2,36.812/- awarded by the Tribunal came to be affirmed and interest awarded @ 8% p.a. came to be reduced to 6% p.a. by judgment dated 07.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Pramit Chhetri and Animesh Dube, Advocates and Mr. T. Mahipal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, assisted by Rohit K. Sinha. Perused the records.

4. The short point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:
(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court deserves to be affirmed or modified?
(2) What order ?

5. BRIEF BACKGROUND
The appellant / claimant met with a road accident on 22.12.2007 and as a result sustained injuries. For award of compensation claim petition under S.166 of MV Act came to be filed. The Insurer contested the matter before the Tribunal and after trial, Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,812/- under the following heads:

6. As already noticed hereinabove, the claimant / appellant challenged the afore - stated award of the Tribunal before the High Court unsuccessfully. Hence this appeal.

7. It is the contention of Shri C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding abysmally less compensation contrary to the evidence on record. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that Tribunal committed a serious error in construing the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m. though it was stated on oath that claimant was aged 24 years on the date of accident and was a graduate, working as a Marketing Executive in a private company and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. He would contend that Tribunal erred in not taking note of the fact that permanent physical disability to the whole body was 48% as per medical evidence and same had been completely ignored. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
7.1 Per contra, Mr. T. Mahipal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer would support the judgment of the High Court and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
The accident in question, claimant / appellant having sustained injuries in the said accident, the offending vehicle having been insured with 1st respondent, issuance of policy and same being in force as on the date of the accident are not disputed. The claimant had sustained multiple cranial fractures of C7 and D1 of right transverse process and vertebral hemotoma, as is evident from Ex.P - 7 Discharge Summary. Medical record also reflected that claimant had sustained contusion of right brachial plexis with right hemiplegia. The CT Scan Ex.P - 12 disclosed extradural haemotoma within right temporal region and hemorrhagic contusions on the right temporal lobe. MRI of cervical spine Ex.P - 13 also disclosed contusion and edema within the cord extending from C4 to C7. Claimant had also sustained fractures involving zygomatic arch and squamous temporal bones. For tr