(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against judgment and award dated 24.04.2014, passed in Mvc.No.1386/2012 on the file of the Iii Additional District Judge and IV Additional MACT Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation & etc.)

Oral Judgment

1. Challenging judgment and award dated 24.04.2014 passed by III Additional District Judge and IV Additional MACT, Belagavi, ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.1386/2012, this appeal is filed.

2. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted at 05:45 p.m., on 02.03.2012, when claimant was standing near bus stop at Goa-ves, Belagavi driver of Car no.KA-22/P-2431 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at BIMS, Belagavi, did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore filed claim petition against owner and insurer of Car.

3. On contest wherein claim petition was opposed on all grounds including denying negligence and violation of terms and conditions of policy, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.

4. Claimant along with Dr.SR Angadi deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P16. On other hand, respondent did not lead any evidence.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash negligent driving of Car by its driver, vehicle was insured and there was no violation of terms and conditions of policy, held claimant entitled for compensation of ₹55,000/- with 8% interest against insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, claimant was in appeal.

6. It was firstly submitted, as on date of accident claimant was 42 years of age, earning ₹15,000/- per month from scrap business had sustained head injury and fracture of distal end of left radius as well as injury to left spine. PW2-Doctor had examined claimant and assessed disability at 25% and issued Ex.P14-disability certificate. Despite same, Tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards 'future loss of income'. It was submitted, tribunal also not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of income during laid up period and towards 'loss of amenities'. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.

7. Sri CV Angadi learned counsel for insurer on other hand opposed appeal. It was submitted PW2 had stated that there were no restriction of movement of hands despite fracture and same was taken note of for denying compensation towards 'future loss of income'. On said ground sought for dismissal.

8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award.

9. From above, point that arise for consideration is:

          "Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"

          Same is answered partly in affirmative for following:

REASONS

10. There is no dispute about claimant a 42 year old scrap dealer sustaining grievous injuries in an accident involving insured vehicle, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and said vehicle having insurance coverage as on date of accident. Tribunal has awarded compensation and claimant seeking enhancement under specific heads.

11. This is a personal injury claim. As per law, claimant would be entitled for compensation towards 'pain and suffering', 'medical expenses', 'loss of future income', 'conveyance, diet and other incidental expenses' 'loss of income during laid up period' and 'loss of amenities' etc. It is seen, Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of income during laid-up period as well as towards 'loss of amenities'. Though claimant stated that he was earning ₹15,000/- per month, same is not supported by any material. In absence, same has to be assessed notionally. Notional income for year 2012 is ₹6,500/-, same has to be considered.

12. Normally fractures take about 3 months to heal. Considering same as period of layoff, claimant is awarded ₹19,500/- towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Though it is contented that claimant sustained fracture of distal end of left radius with mal-union and assessed by PW2 to have resulted in 25% disability to affected limb as per Ex.P14, it is noted by Tribunal in paragraph no.11 of its judgment that, in his deposition, PW2 admitted that there was no restriction of movement of hands. In light of said material, denial of compensation towards 'future loss of income' by Tribunal would be justified. However, at time of arriving at said finding, Tribunal has also noted opinion of PW2 about mal-union of fracture. Same would require to be compensated under head of 'loss of amenities' and towards, which it is found appropriate to award sum of ₹25,000/-. Thus, claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of ₹44,500/-. Consequently following:

ORDER

          (i) Appeal is allowed in part.

          (ii) Claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of ₹44,500/-, which shall carry interest at 8% per annum, from date of claim petition, till deposit.

          (iii) Insurer is directed to deposit same before Tribunal within 6 weeks.

          (iv) On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release same in favour of claimant.