Court clarified compensation assessment principles under Motor Vehicles Act, mandating adherence to notional income schedules and proper evaluations of disability.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the NEKRTC, challenging the common judgment and award dated 27.03.2013 passed in MVC Nos.775 and 776 of 2012 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, and Additional MACT, Byadgi.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:

3. On 11.08.2012, the petitioners were travelling in a NWKSRTC bus bearing registration no. KA-42/F-440, from Bengaluru to Ranebennur on NH-4. The driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, and when the bus was moving near Hunashekatti village in Davanagere Taluk., the driver lost control over the bus and collided with a lorry bearing registration No.TN-52/A-7600. As a result, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.

4. The NWKSRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and prays to dismiss the claim petitions.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the common relevant issues.

6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner in MVC No.775/2012 was examined as P.W.1, petitioner in MVC No.776/2012 was examined as P.W.2, and examined the doctor as P.W.3, and marked 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P.19. Conversely, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,90,395/- in MVC No.775/2012, and Rs.3,94,738/- in MVC No.776/2012 with interest at the rate of 6%, and directed NWKSRTC to deposit the compensation amount.

8. The NWKSRTC, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC Nos.775 and 776 of 2012, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the NWKSRTC, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. The learned counsel for the NWKSRTC submits that the petitioners have not produced the income proof, and in the absence of income proof, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.9,000/-, which is on the higher side. He submits that the in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals.

12. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.

14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioners in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal.

Reg. Quantum of compensation:

15. Insofar as the quantu