The court determined that compensation awards must accurately reflect the extent of injuries and disabilities incurred by claimants, ensuring just compensation aligns with evidence of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

MFA No.100787/2017 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.21316/2011 is filed by the KSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 02.11.2010, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Itinerate Court, Byadagi, in MVC No.412/2007, seeking for enhancement of compensation and questioning the apportionment of rashness and negligence, respectively.

2. MFA No.100788/2017 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.21317/2011 is filed by the KSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 02.11.2010, passed by the very same Court, in MVC No.413/2007, seeking for enhancement of compensation and questioning the apportionment of rashness and negligence, respectively.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed before the Court.

4. In the present case, the claimants being the rider and pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/5469 met with an accident against a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-25/F-1392, which occurred on 14.06.2006 and sustained injuries.

5. The tribunal has held that the driver of KSRTC bus was completely rash and negligent in driving the bus and caused the accident. The tribunal has appreciated the documentary evidence which are FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet, from which it is forthcoming that the driver of the KSRTC bus was completely rash and negligent in driving the bus and caused the accident. There is no allegation against the rider of motorcycle. Though the driver of KSRTC bus is examined as RW.1, but his evidence is not corroborated with the documentary evidence to prove his innocence, whereas the documentary evidence conclusively prove the fact that driver of KSRTC bus was completely rash and negligent in driving the bus and caused the accident. Therefore, on the rashness and negligence aspect the appeals filed by the KSRTC are liable to be dismissed.

Re: Quantum of Compensation.

MFA No.100787/2017.

6. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries.

“Abrasion over right chin 1 cm x 1 cm;

Tenderness over right hip joint;

Blunt injury over right side of chest;

Blunt injury over lower back;

Tenderness over right side of lower half of face.”

7. The tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under:

8. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation awarded by tribunal is on lesser side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award.

9. Considering the injuries sustained, a compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities are awarded. The compensation awarded towards medical expenses and hospital charges of Rs.20,568/- is as per the actual bills and receipts produced; therefore, the same is kept intact. Further, Rs.20,000/- towards incidental expenses like food, nourishment, travelling, attendant charges, etc., is awarded.

10. The doctor PW.3 has stated that the claimant had suffered permanent physical disability of 40%. The claimant has suffered tenderness over right hip joint, blunt injury over right side of chest, blunt injury over lower back and tenderness over