The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for a motor vehicle accident based on the cause of the accident, extent of injuries, and the claimant's occupation and age.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bangalore in m. V. C. No. 2081 of 1995 whereby a sum of Rs. 6,35,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum has been awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident. While m. F. A. No. 3446 of 1997 filed by National insurance Co. Ltd. seeks dismissal of the claim petition or reduction of the amount awarded to the claimant, M. F. A. No. 3767 of 1997 filed by the claimant seeks a suitable enhancement of the award amount.

( 2 ) THE claimant was on 2. 6. 1995 travelling by an autorickshaw bearing registration no. CAA 774. When the autorickshaw reached near Bannerghatta Main Road, it collided with a motor car bearing registration No. KA 04-M 4002 resulting in the death of the autorickshaw driver and serious injuries to the claimant. The claimant was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for treatment, where X-rays confirmed fractures of left L-2 vertebra and 4th right rib. The spinal injury sustained by the claimant resulted in paraplegia, i. e. , loss of sensation below the waist. Continuous treatment has not helped the claimant to regain sensation with the result that the claimant has to use a catheter for passing urine and bags for passing stools. A claim petition was in due course filed by the claimant claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 towards compensation. The claim petition alleged that the accident in question had taken place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by its driver. The claim was opposed by the owner of the autorickshaw and the insurance company with which the same was insured, giving rise to three issues which the Tribunal framed in the following words:" (1) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident that took place on 2. 6. 1995 at 2. 45 p. m. was due to rash and negligent driving of autorickshaw No. CAA 774 by its driver by dashing against a moving car as alleged? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? (3) To what order or award?"

( 3 ) BY the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and recorded a specific finding that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by its driver. Insofar as issue No. 2 was concerned, the tribunal found that the injury sustained by the claimant had resulted in 100 per cent permanent disability. It assessed the future loss of earnings at a sum of Rs. 2,52,000 taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 50 per day and applying the multiple of 14. In addition, it awarded in favour of the claimant, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain and suffering resulting from injuries and a similar amount towards permanent loss of amenities in life. To that amount, it added a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards medical expenses, Rs. 18,000 towards loss of income for one year and Rs. 25,000 towards purchase of catheter for passing urine and stools and a similar amount towards future medical expenses making a total of Rs. 6,35,000, made recoverable from the owner of the autorickshaw and the insurance company jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company as also the claimant has filed the present appeals as already noticed earlier.

( 4 ) MR. O. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company in m. F. A. No. 3446 of 1997, argued that the tribunal was in error in holding that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by its driver. He submitted that from the material placed on record before the Tribunal, it was evident that the accident had if not wholly at least partially occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor car involved in the accident. Learned Tribunal had, however, erroneously overlooked that aspect and awarded entire amount of compensation against the appellants