M UDAYA KUMAR Vs. R CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Kolar District, in MVC No.94/2006.

(2.) APPELLANT filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the personal injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 7.35am on 23.01.2006, as a result of Maruthi Car bearing registration No.TN.01.4266 dashing against him, while he was waiting by the side of NH-4 near Takal Cross in Kolar, on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA.07.E.8282. According to the claimant he suffered fracture of medial malleolus of the right ankle apart from grievous injuries on his face, right thigh and other parts of the body and in spite of the best treatment, he has incurred permanent disability. According to him, he was working as a lecturer in Government Pre-University College at Kolar and due to disability suffered by him in the accident in question, he was unable to carry on his vocation as a lecturer. The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the offending vehicle, while the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and had been placed ex-parte.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount received by the claimant at the time of taking voluntary retirement from service from out of the compensation determined towards future loss of income. It is his further contention that the evidence of the Doctor examined as PW.2 regarding whole body disability is not acceptable and even the percentage of disability spoken to by PW.2 is highly negligible, as such, no compensation towards future loss of income was payable. It is his further submission that there is absolutely no acceptable evidence regarding future prospects for the claimant and in the absence of any such evidence, there is no ground to add any amount to the income of the claimant towards future prospects. It is his further submission that the multiplier method of computation of compensation in this case is not applicable and the compensation, if any, will have to be assessed on the basis of the left-over period of service. As a whole, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the compensation determined and awarded by the Tribunal is more than adequate, therefore, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation under any of the heads. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.