ORDER

1. In an accident that took place on 19-5-1994, the claimant suffered injuries. The injuries as prescribed by PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5, who are the doctors, are that the claimant sustained multiple injuries including extensive incarcerated injury over the right thigh and other injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 65% to 70%.

2. We have heard the parties. This appeal has been filed by the Managing Director, BMTC, the owner of the offending bus. The appeal is against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the enhancement made by the High Court. Before we proceed to examine the quantum of compensation, we may at this stage, recite the facts as to how the claimant conducted himself.

3. Claim petition was filed on 3-6-1994. It was dismissed in default on 12-3-1997. Thereafter, the claimant filed complaint before the Consumer Forum on 9-10-1997 for the same cause of action. In the said petition, he asserted that he is suffering out of the injuries sustained by him due to negligence of doctors. He filed a restoration application on 17-5-1998 before MACT but he did not disclose that he has also filed a petition before the Consumer Forum for compensation for the same cause of action. The restoration application was allowed on 15-7-1998. In his original claim, he made a claim of Rs 5,00,000. He filed an amendment application for a claiming Rs 25,00,000 including the original claim. The amendment application was allowed on 28-3-2001.

4. The claimant, in our view, has not approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with clean hands. In support of his claim, the claimant examined PW 3, the Area Manager of the company in which he was employed. PW 3 in his statement states that at the relevant time the claimant b was working as a salesman and he was due for promotion as Area Manager but he was not promoted because of the accident and if he was promoted as Area Manager he would have been getting the salary of Rs 9500 to Rs 10,000 p.m. As against this, the claimant examined himself as PW 1. He stated in examination-in-chief that he joined the company in 1990 as a Sales Manager. He joined the company in 1990. His salary was Rs 5000 p.m. He was given c promotion by his company and thereafter his salary was increased by Rs 2000. Thereafter, he was given promotion as a Manager in Sales Division and was given a salary of more than Rs 10,000 p.m. In his claim petition, he has categorically stated that he was a Sales Officer and his salary was Rs 1650 p.m. At this stage, we, at the most, can say that the conduct of the claimant is unreasonable and unfair. Since somehow, he suffered permanent d disability to the extent of 65% to 70% of the whole body arising out of motor accident, we say no more.

5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs 15,36,460 under the following heads with interest @ 9% p.a.

(a) Medical attendant charges 68,400

(b) Medical bills 5,00,000

(c) Future medical expenses 1,50,000

(d) For plastic surgery 2,00,000

(e) Fracture of both the bones of right leg 75,000

(f) Movement of right hip and knee 2000

(g) Deglowing (sic) injury over the right leg anterior and

posterior muscle exposed 20,000

(h) Abrasion over the right iliac fossa 2000

(i) Abrasion over the patella 2000

(j) Compound segmental fracture of

shaft of right femur 30,000

(k) Loss of future income 3,72,060

(l) Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000

(m) Extra nourishment food and

miscellaneous expenses 15,000

--------------

Total 15,36,460

6. While making the aforesaid calculation, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the claimant as Rs 2650 inclusive of Rs 1000 conveyance allowance. Conveyance allowance is not future loss of the income. It appears from the evidence on record and supported by the salary certificate issued by PW 3, and not disputed even by the claimant in his claim petition, that the salary of the claim