M. B. VISHWANATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Karnataka State Road transport Corporation.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant claimant challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in M. V. C. No. 92 of 1982. The Tribunal awarded the claimant a compensation of rs. 25,000/ -. The appellant had claimed Rs. 75,000/- as compensation.

( 3 ) THERE were two claim petitions M. V. C. No. 92 of 1982 (which has given rise to the present appeal) and M. V. C. No. 90 of 1982 in respect of the accident. The Tribunal awarded rs. 15,000/- as compensation in M. V. C. No. 90 of 1982,

( 4 ) THE accident in question happened this way: On 14-10-1981 at about 11. 30 a. m. the appellant-claimant and his father (claimant in M. V. C. No. 90 of 1982) were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No. MYG 6476. The autorickshaw was going towards Belthangady side. At that time near Church Road, the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation bus bearing No. MYF 7494 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and dashed against the autorickshaw. Consequently, the appellant-claimant sustained injuries.

( 5 ) THE respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has filed the cross-objections challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding rashness and negligence as also the quantum of compensation.

( 6 ) SO far as the finding of the Tribunal with regard to rashness and negligence, the argument advanced on behalf of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Karnataka State road Transport Corporation bus need not detain the Court.

( 7 ) THE finding of the Tribunal with regard to rashness and negligence in M. V. C. No. 90 of 1982 has become final, since no appeal has been preferred. M. V. C. Nos. 90 of 1982 and 92 of 1982 arise out of the same accident. When no appeal has been filed challenging the award and judgment passed in M. V. C. No. 90 of 1982, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation cannot be heard to. say in the present appeal arising out of m. V. G, No. 92 of 1982 that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence the cross-objections have to be dismissed.

( 8 ) NOW I take up the quantum of compensation, whether it is adequate and reasonable or inadequate.

( 9 ) THE Doctor P. W. 1, Rathnakar who is a practising Eye Surgeon has stated in his evidence that he has examined the appellant-claimant in respect of the injury sustained to the left eye in the accident in question. He has clearly stated that primary optic atrophy was present in the left eye and the vision of the left eye is totally nil. Ex. P-1 is the certificate issued by this Doctor. Ex. P-2 is the case sheet. The case sheet Ex. P-2 and the wound certificate show that the appellant-claimant was inpatient in Father Muller Hospital, Mangalore from 14-10-1981 to 9-11-1981. The Doctor has stated that the patient was referred to him on 6-11-1981.

( 10 ) THE evidence of Doctor P. W. 1 read conjointly with the certificate Ex. P-l and the case sheet Ex. P-2 clearly establishes that the appellant-claimant has lost complete vision in the left eye.

( 11 ) NOTHING resembles God so much as the eyes of children. The appellant-claimant has to suffer throughout his life in view of the fact that he is completely blind in the left eye. He was 9 years old at the time of the accident and he is the son of a business-man. Taking all these facts into consideration, the quantum of compensation awarded by the member of the tribunal is thoroughly inadequate, I am of the opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation as claimed in the petition, namely Rs. 75,000/ -.

( 12 ) THE Insurance Company has to thank its stars that the appellant did not claim higher compensation.

( 13 ) THE appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document