VIRUPAXI BASAVANNEPPA MALANNAVAR Vs. SUNIL R PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the claimant and the Insurance Company. The appellant-claimant has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance Company has filed the appeal that the claimant is not entitled for the compensation under the loss of future earning item.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 24.04.2009, the claimant was proceeding on his Honda Activa bearing No.KA-22/Y-7423 on old P.B. Road towards Central Bus-stand at Belguam for going to Hon'ble High Court, Circuit Bench, Dharwad for his professional work. At about 8:30 a.m. when he came near Shetty Galli Cross, the driver of the TATA India Car bearing No.MH-04/BN- 3684 came from behind, i.e., RTO Office side, in a rash and negligent matter with great speed and dashed to the rear side of the petitioner's vehicle, while overtaking his vehicle. Due to the impact, claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Belguam. The claimant took treatment for three days as an indoor inpatient in the above hospital and underwent surgery for reducing the comminuted fracture of left wrist and right heel. Thereafter, he got discharged himself from the hospital and the Doctors have advised him to come for follow up treatment on regular basis. He had spent Rs.35,000/- for his medical treatment. Even then, the claimant is not completely cured and he has sustained permanent and physical disablement. Claimant requires Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for his future medical treatment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that he was injured with 28% to the upper limb and 12% to the right lower limb disability. Whereas the Tribunal has taken over all 12% disability despite of PW2 doctor's evidence. It was further contended that he had furnished income tax returns vide Ex.P22, if over all income is taken, his monthly income would be Rs.33,000/-, whereas the Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month and moreover the claimant was practicing advocate, who had practice for 27 years. Further, the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation appropriately in all heads like pain and suffering, loss of future earnings and loss of amenities and future unhappiness.