RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN a bodily injury case, the injured, a minor represented by his father, natural guardian, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, has preferred this appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), calling in question the judgment and award dated 17. 9. 2002, passed in M. V. C. No. 1254 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Saun-datti (for short 'm. A. C. T. ' ).

( 2 ) FACTS in brief, noticed, for decision making are: on 19. 4. 2000 at about 1345 hours, while Iranna, son of Basappa Kurahatti was walking on the left side of the road in Kasaba lane, near Jogannavar Complex on Nargund-Saundatti Road of Nargund town, the motor vehicle being a bus bearing registration No. KA 25-F 937, belonging to the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Sankdal side dashed against the said Iranna. Due to the said accident, Iranna sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg below knee. The injured a student studying in 2nd standard, resident of Kurahatti, Ramdurg taluk of District belgaum, was admitted to the Government hospital, Saundatti, for his treatment and thereafter to KMC Hospital, Hubli for further treatment as an inpatient. Due to the amputation of the left leg, the injured discontinued his studies. On the aforesaid facts, the injured represented by his father filed a claim petition under the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000, which petition was numbered as M. V. C. No. 1254 of 2000. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on notice, filed separate written statements denying the claim of the injured.

( 3 ) IN the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the M. A. C. T. framed three issues, recorded the depositions of the father of the claimant as PW 1 and two other witnesses pws 2 and 3. On behalf of the claimant, 13 documents were produced and marked as Exhs. P-1 to P-13. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence or produce any documents in support of their pleading.

( 4 ) THE M. A. C. T. , appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, returned a finding of actionable negligence on the driver of the bus, causing the accident, resulting in grievous bodily injuries to the claimant. The M. A. C. T. awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,27,000 with interest at 9 per cent per annum under the following heads:

( 5 ) MR. D. S. Hosmath, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000 towards medical expenses is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. He would also contend that the M. A. C. T. ought to have taken Rs. 30,000 per annum as the earning capacity of the injured and the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent instead of Rs. 15,000 per annum and 60 per cent functional disability, which in the established facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous. In addition, he would also contend that the application of multiple 15' is incorrect and what is required to be applied is multiple 18'. Lastly, he would contend that the award of Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities is inadequate and requires to be enhanced.

( 6 ) THOUGH the notice of the appeal was served on the respondents, they have remained unrepresented.

( 7 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant, the only question for determination in this appeal is whether the award of rs. 2,27,000 under different heads in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record could be considered to be just, reasonable and within the contemplation of the Act? If not, what is the just and reasonable compensation, the appellant is entitled to?

( 8 ) MR. D. S. Hosmath, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the principles and norms governing the determination of compensation in bodily injury cases, as noticed by us, in our judgment in fakkirappa v. Yallawwa, 2004 ACJ 1141 (Karnataka), wherein one of us, Nay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document