The court applied the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, specifically Schedule I, Part I, item 6, to determine the compensation for 100% deafness.

B. K. SANGALAD, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise against the award passed in MVC Nos. 25 and 26 of 1988.

( 2 ) THE respondent in both appeals has filed cross-objections for reduction of compensation and also challenged the negligence.

( 3 ) IN MVC No. 32 of 1988, the claimant was the rider of the scooter. The appellants in these appeals were travelling as pillion riders on the scooter on 19. 7. 87. At about 9. 00 a. m. the accident took place near mani on Mangalore-Bangalore National highway. While the driver of the scooter was going slowly on the left side of the road near the said spot, a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. MEF 618 came from the opposite direction in a high speed on the wrong side driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter. As a result, all of them got injuries.

( 4 ) FOR the claimants, PWs 1 to 4 are examined and Exhs. P1 to P22 are marked. For the respondents, no witness is examined much less any document is marked.

( 5 ) AT the very outset, the contention of mr. Dabali, learned counsel for the respondent, in respect of negligence, is taken up for consideration. Even there is some delay in filing cross-objections in these appeals. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the award passed in MVC no. 32 of 1988. It is pertinent to note that all these MVC Nos. 25, 26 and 32 of 1988 arise out of the same accident. When the respondent has not chosen to prefer the appeal in MVC No. 32 of 1988, it goes without saying that the respondent has accepted the negligence. The respondent cannot afford to challenge negligence in some cases and keep quiet in some cases. When there is a common judgment, the respondent ought to have filed appeal against the award passed in MVC No. 32 of 1988 also. Hence in my opinion the contention of Mr. Dabali that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter also, cannot be accepted.

( 6 ) MR. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellants now canvassed that the compensation awarded is very meagre. On the other hand, Mr. Dabali submits that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and it is liable to be reduced. In view of these submissions, I perused the judgment of the Tribunal.

( 7 ) LET us take first what compensation should be awarded in MVC No. 25 of 1988. The claimant is a minor girl aged about 11 years. Exh. P1 is the wound certificate which would show that she sustained the fracture of left femur and frontal parietal region. The claimant is examined as PW 1. These injuries are grievous in nature. In addition to these injuries, she also sustained other injuries. Exh. P2 is the case-sheet which would show that she was in the hospital from 19. 7. 1987 to 3. 9. 1987. Exh. P3 is the X-ray. It is observed by the Tribunal that no medical bills are produced. Mr. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of the father of this minor child, namely, pw 2 has gone unchallenged in the cross- examination. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards pain and suffering on account of the injuries. Mr. Mahesh submitted that the injured was taken to the Government Venlock Hospital, mangalore. But unfortunately no doctor is examined. On the basis of the evidence on record, now it is to be seen what is the just and reasonable compensation. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that he spent Rs. 6,000 for the treatment of his daughter and has spent Rs. 15,000 for the treatment of his son. It is also on the record that the girl was in-patient from 19. 7. 1987 to 3. 9. 1987. Almost for more than one and half months she was in-patient. It is noted that the girl is of tender age. She got the fracture of left femur and frontal parietal region. If something had been very serious and severe, she could have suffered to the larger extent and these injuries certainly affect her future life. However, the doctor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document