Judgment :-

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the common judgment and final order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1131 of 2011 [MV], C/W M.F.A. Nos. 1132 and 1133 of 2011 [MV], urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in these appeals.

On 14.8.2008, all the three appellants/ claimants in the appeals herein were proceeding on the left side of the road by pushing the motorcycle bearing Registration no. KA-16-2404 since it was punctured. When the appellants/ claimants came near the Coper Petrol Bunk, opposite to Jai Hind Hotel, a tractor bearing no KA-16/T-8219-8220 came from the opposite direction on its right side in rash and negligent manner and dashed into the motor cycle and the appellants/claimants. This resulted in all the appellants/claimants sustaining grievous injuries.

4. They filed MV Case Nos. 149, 147 and 148 of 2010 respectively before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chitradurga (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal awarded different awards in the three different appeals which had been heard together by the High Court of Karnataka. Since the injuries suffered by the three appellants are different, we are inclined to decide upon the appeals individually. As far as injuries sustained by the appellants in the road accident are concerned, there is no dispute that the accident occurred on 14.02.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor- trailer bearing registration No. KA-16/T-8219-8220 by its driver. The appeals therefore, are confined to determining whether the quantum of compensation which was enhanced by the High Court from that of the Tribunal is just and proper or whether it requires further enhancement in the interest of justice. We take up the appeals one at a time.

Civil Appeal @ MFA 1131/2011 (MVC No. 149/ 2010)

5. It is evident from the material and legal evidence produced on record that the appellant/ claimant in this appeal had sustained injuries to lower end of right femur and his right leg was amputated. Further, he had sustained injury over his left upper arm. The injuries sustained by him and the treatment taken by him are evident from the wound certificate Ex. P-6, discharge cards Ex.P-7&8, disability certificate Ex. P-12, X-ray films Ex.P-218 and was further supported by oral evidence of the appellant/claimant and the doctor examined as PW-1 and PW-4 respectively. PW-4 Dr. Rajesh had stated in his evidence that the appellant/claimant had suffered disability of 24% to upper limb and 85% to lower limb. The Tribunal, however, had considered the disability of the appellant/claimant caused to whole body at 30%. The High Court however, taking into consideration the amputation of the right leg of the appellant/claimant, determined the disability at 65% without assigning any proper reason for coming to this conclusion. Therefore, we intend to assign our reasons to hold that the High Court has erred in concluding the disability at 65%.

6. This Court in the case of Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. [2012) 2 SCC 267], has elaborately discussed upon the factors which determine the loss of income of the claimant more objectively. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

“11. In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations:

10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend