This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur (henceforth referred to as

'Tribunal') in MVC No.232/2017 vide its judgment and

award dated 01.10.2019.

The claimant suffered injuries in a road traffic

accident on 23.12.2016 when he was travelling in an

autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-36-B-3505, which

was dashed against by a lorry bearing registration No.TN-

67-E-5222 (henceforth referred to as 'offending lorry').

The claimant suffered comminuted fracture of tibia and

- 3 -

plateau C, fibula C of the right leg resulting in G avulsion

fracture of right leg. The claimant was shifted to VIMS,

Bellary and from there he was referred to Victoria

Hospital, Bengaluru, where he was admitted as an

inpatient for a period of 17 days. The claimant claimed

that he availed treatment at Suraksha Hospital, Raichur.

He claimed that he was a driver in Car and was earning a

sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.7,500/- per month as

daily allowance. He claimed that due to the injuries

suffered in the accident, he was unable to be employed as

a driver. Therefore, he filed a claim petition under Section

166

of

the

Motor

Vehicles

Act,

1988

claiming

compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending

lorry.

3.

The claim petition was resisted by the insurer

who contended that it was the driver of the autorickshaw

who was negligent and therefore, the insurer of offending

lorry is not liable to indemnify the owner. It contended

that the injuries suffered by the claimant were simple in

- 4 -

nature and the compensation claimed by the claimant

were excessive.

4.

Based on these rival contentions, the claim

petition was set down for trial. The claimant was examined

as PW.1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P42. He examined a

Doctor as PW.2 who deposed that the claimant had

suffered disability to the extent of 28% to 30% to the

whole body and 42% to 44% to the affected limb. The

insurer did not lead any evidence, but marked copy of the

insurance policy as Ex.R1.

5.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash

and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver.

It also held that the claimant had suffered comminuted

fracture of right leg tibia and plateau C, fibula C of the

right leg resulting in G avulsion fracture of right leg and

was treated at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. However, he

was discharged from the said hospital without undergoing

treatment for fracture. It held that X-ray placed on record

- 5 -

indicated that the claimant had suffered fracture but the

Tribunal did not believe the evidence of PW.2, as he was

not the Doctor who treated the claimant. The Tribunal

considered the income of the claimant at a sum of

Rs.6,000/-

per

month

and

awarded

the

following

compensation:-

Sl.

No.

Particulars

Amount

(in Rs.)

1

Towards medical and other

incidental charges

20,000/-

2

Towards pain and suffering

20,000/-

3

Towards loss of amenities of

life

20,000/-

Total

60,000/-

The Tribunal directed the insurer of the offending

lorry to pay the aforesaid compensation along with interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim

petition till the date of realisation.

6.

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is in

appeal.

- 6 -

7.

The learned counsel for the claimant contended

that there is evidence on record which discloses that the

claimant had suffered fracture of right tibia and fibula and

therefore, the claimant had suffered disability taking into

account his avocation. She submits that the disability as

stated by PW.2 ought to have been accepted. She

contends that the Tribunal must have considered the

notional income of the claimant at Rs.8,750/- per month.

She further contended that the Tribunal failed to award

compensation towards the loss of income during the

period of treatment, attendant charges as well as loss of

income due