The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, considering factors such as loss of income, medical expenses, pain, suffering, and mental agony.

1. The appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation granted to the 1st respondent for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

2. The facts reveal that on 28.02.2005, the 1st respondent herein, a District Judge, was proceeding in the bus bearing reg. No.KA-25/F-1681 and at 00.30 hours, the driver lost the control over the vehicle and the bus turtled. As a result, the 1st respondent herein suffered fracture of the left arm and he took treatment at Bangalore and in different other hospitals. There was permanent disability and therefore, a claim was made for compensation towards loss of income, medical expenses, pain, suffering mental agony, etc. The injured was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor, who assessed the disability is examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to 53 are the documents admitted in their evidence. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked in his evidence.

The Tribunal after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, granted a sum of Rs.7,72,955-00 with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

4. The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the compensation awarded is on the higher side? If so, what is the just and reasonable compensation?

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant is a Government servant and has been continued in his services after the accident. He submits that the compensation awarded towards loss of future income is improper and erroneous. It is also his submission that the compensation on the other heads is on the higher side and needs reduction.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation. and therefore, it is his contention that even if the loss of future earnings is to be annuled, considering the reasonable compensation payable on the other heads, the total amount awarded is reasonable. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this appeal.

6. Ex.P5 is the injury certificate and Ex.P6 is the case sheet. These 2 documents would reveal that there is a fracture of shaft of left humorous with wrist drop. P.W.2 is the doctor, who assessed the disability and issued the certificate-Ex.P52. In his opinion, there is permanent disability to an accident of 13% of the whole body and the injured cannot lift heavy objects by his left hand because of the disability he suffered.

7. It is not in dispute that the injured is serving as a District Judge and has been continued in the service even after the accident. Therefore, there is no question of granting any compensation towards loss of future income. Anyhow, the injured is entitled to a reasonable compensation on other heads.

8. The injured is not entitled to the future loss of income and therefore, for his sufferings all along the life with the permanent disability, a sum of Rs.30,000-00 paid by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Taking into consideration the nature of the work, the inconvenience that he faced and also suffering with the disability, I think it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.50,000-00 for pain, suffering and mental agony.

9. Exs.P7 to 33 are the medical bills exceeding Rs.67,000-00. Taking into consideration the bills produced, a sum of Rs.70,000-00 is payable towards the medical expenses incurred by the injured for the treatment that he has taken.

10. No compensation has been awarded for food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, and only a sum of Rs.3,000-00 has been paid by the Tribunal, which has been added to the medical expenses incurred. The injured was in the hospital for 5 days. At the time of the accident, he was serving in Bidar. He has taken treatment in Bangalore. He has to pay independently towards food and other expenses whenever goes for treatment to Bangalore and his evidence reveals that on many occasions, he has tra