The court emphasized that the bus driver's negligence led to the accident, warranting an enhancement of compensation based on the claimant's permanent disability and lost earnings.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. Both the owner of the vehicle (for short 'the corporation') as well as claimant preferred these appeals, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.02.2016, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar (for short “the tribunal”), in MVC No.548/2013. Corporation filed in MFA No.5933/2016 challenging negligence and quantum of compensation. Claimant filed appeal in MFA No.7562/2016 for enhancement of compensation. Both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.08.2011, at around 5.00 p.m., the claimant was going on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EB-8553 towards Bangalore side; near Bethani village, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus belonging to corporation bearing registration No.AP-29-Z-288, by its driver. As a result, he sustained fracture of right femur and right medial malleoleous. He underwent treatment and has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% in the right lower limb and 15% to the whole body. The claimant was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and he was a driver and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. With these reasons, the claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. It appears, the matter was earlier pending before the Small Causes Court at Bengalore and later on it was transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar, on the point of jurisdiction. It appears that the respondent/corporation did not file written statement when the matter was pending before MACT, Kolar.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 13 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondent/corporation examined one witness as RW-1.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the claimant as 25 years at the time of the accident, his earning as Rs.5,000/- per month and disability at 10% to the whole body, applied the multiplier as `18' and awarded following amount of compensation:

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimant as well as corporation.

9. Learned counsel for the corporation submits that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle, who hit against the left side of the bus, indicating that rider of the motorcycle had come on to the wrong side of the road and hit against the bus. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver. Since the vehicle belonging to claimant was a two- wheeler, the police have falsely registered a case against driver of the bus.

10. The learned Advocate for claimant further contends that looking at the motor vehicle inspection report, the said fact is very clear; even the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. According to the medical records, the age of the claimant was 30 years and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side. With these reasons, prayed to allow the appeal filed by the corporation.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that, as per the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1, the bus hit against the motorcycle from its right s