The High Court assessed total bodily disability at 30 and assessed his income at Rs.3000/ p.m. and held that the income proportionate to the disability was Rs.1000/ p.m. On re appreciation of facts and evidence, the High Court held that the appellant was entitled to a reduced companypensation as follows Pain and agony Rs.50,000/ Loss of amenities and future discomfort Rs.30,000/ Loss of income during laid up period Rs.18,000/ Loss of income on account of disability Rs.1,92,000/ Rs.1000 X 12 X 16 Medical and incidental expenses Rs.30,000/ TOTAL Rs.3,20,000/ The High Court, in passing its award, has virtually given numberreasons for reducing the companypensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant.
The doctor assessed permanent disability of 86 to the left lower limb and 43 to the whole body.
As a result of the injuries, the appellant was unable to walk, sit or stand without support and his left lower limb was shortened by 2.5 inches and, therefore, was incapable of driving any type of vehicle.
Since the appellant was unable to use both his legs for driving, it would affect his occupation as a driver to a great extent.
TN 34 A 2994 dashed against the appellant.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal MACT companycluded that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence of the lorry driver bearing No.
TN 34 A 2994 as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries.
Accordingly, on taking into companysideration the nature of disabilities suffered with reference to the avocation of the appellant, it estimated the functional loss of future earning capacity of the appellant at 100.
HR 38 F 8781 and the same was stopped in front of WIPRO companypany at Ring Road on 31.12.2001, when at about 9 a.m., driver of the lorry bearing No.
The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.4 lacs as companypensation.
The appellant had claimed that he was earning Rs.5000 6000/ p.m. However, the same was unsubstantiated by material evidence.
Before the MACT, it was found that the appellant sustained companypound type 3 A fracture of left femur, companypound type 2 supracondylar fracture of left femur and fractured right pubic bone for which he had to undergo operation and treatment in the hospital.
Accordingly, loss of future earnings of the appellant was calculated at Rs.2400 X 12 X 16 Rs.4,60,800/ .
The appellant sustained multiple injuries and was rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and then to Victoria Hospital.
Hence, the Tribunal estimated the daily earnings of the appellant at Rs.80/ and monthly earnings at Rs.2400/ .
Aggrieved by the companypensation granted by the Tribunal, the insurance companypany appealed to the High Court of Karnataka companytending that the companypensation so awarded was arbitrary and unreasonable.
At the time of the accident, the appellant was 28 years old.
Thus, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16.
The appellant claimant was a driver cum cleaner of lorry bearing No.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
Tribunal awarded companypensation as follows Loss of future earnings Rs.4,60,800/ Injury, pain and suffering Rs.40,000/ Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life Rs.30,000/ Medical expenses Rs.25,000/ Loss of earning during treatment Rs.12,000/ for 5 months Conveyance and numberrishment Rs.10,000/ TOTAL Rs.5,77,800/ The Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle and the insurance companypany were jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,77,800/ as companypensation to the appellant, along with interest 8 from the date of the petition till realization.
