The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation based on the claimant's income and permanent disability, as well as the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149.

JUDGMENT :

K. Somashekar, J.

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, the matters are taken up for final disposal.

2. Mfa No.7797/15 is preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.622/2012 dated 07.04.2015 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,05,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.

3. Mfa Nos.4353/15 and 4354/15 are preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the common judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.622/2012 and 623/2012, whereby the Tribunal has held respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and respondent No.3-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of the order.

4. The factual matrix of these cases are as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 18.11.2011 the claimants, Manjunatha (Appellant in MFA No.7797/15 and claimant in MVC No.622/12) and Hanumanthappa (Claimant in MVC No.623/12) boarded Renukamba Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19/AB-6030, to go to Bhadravathi and at about 10 a.m., when the said bus was coming near Bommanakatte Housing Board with high speed, the right side back tyre bursted and due to the said burst, the mudguard and flooring of the bus smashed and hence the claimants sustained grievous injuries and also sustained fractures. The injured- Manjunatha has sustained segmental/communited fracture present over right tibia and fibula, communited fracture present over left calcaneum and he was shifted to Shivamogga and admitted to Mallikarjuna Nursing Home wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 25 days and incurred huge amount for his treatment. He was doing coolie work to eke out his livelihood and earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- p.m., and was maintaining his family members. But, because of the accidental injuries, he could not discharge his work as he was doing before the accident. He has suffered with permanent disability. Hence he preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. Notice was ordered on the respondents in the claim petitions and respondents have filed their written statements.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues. On behalf of the claimants, the claimants examined themselves as PW-1 in both the claim petitions and got examined Dr. Nandakishore as PW-3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P71 in MVC No.622/15 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 in MVC No.623/15. On behalf of the respondents, one Mr.B.L.Santhosh was examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R6.

On evaluating the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record, Tribunal by a common judgment and award, awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,05,900/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the claimant in MVC No.622/15 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the claimant in MVC No.623/15. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said compensation amount with interest within a period of one month from the date of order.

5. Sri. M. V. Maheswarappa, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.7797/2015 has taken me through the evidence of PW-1 Manjunatha and contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of PW-1 in order to arrive at a right conclusion in awarding compensation suitably, but has erroneously given a finding in assessing his income at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was doing coolie work to eke out his livelihood and