Compensation should reflect the correct assessment of disability and income, ensuring that interest rates align with prevailing bank rates, not arbitrarily higher than justified.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

1. The respondent/appellant-KSRTC being aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed in MVC No.619/2015 and MVC No.620/2015 dated 01.04.2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur (for short ’ the Tribunal’) has filed these two appeals; whereas, these two cross-objections are filed by the respective claimants under Order XLI, Rule 22 of C.P.C. praying for enhancement of compensation.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The claimants in MVC Nos.619/2015 and 620/2015 have filed the respective claim petitions under S.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 praying for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/EB-0943 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-31/F-1183 on 11.09.2014 at 15.40 p.m. on Ukkund Veerapur road near Primary school at Ranebennur.

4. The claimant in MVC No.619/2025 has suffered the injuries in the aforesaid accident as per Ex.P.6-wound certificate, which are as follows:-

1) Contusion with abrasion over right eye;

2) Abrasion over chin;

3) Abrasion over chest;

4) Abrasion over right hand;

5) Abrasion over right knee;

6) Tenderness over right chest;

7) Tenderness over jaws;

8) Injured was treated and referred to higher center. Feed back from Apoorva Nursing Home and X-rays shows fracture of L3 Radius

9) Fracture of Condyle right Tibia.

5. The claimant in MVC No.620/2015 has sustained the following injuries as per Ex.P.10 wound certificate, in the accident:-

1) Fracture of right ulna bone

2) Fracture of Condyle of right Tibia

3) Abrasion over knee

6. On behalf of claimants, both claimants were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 apart from examining the doctor as P.W.3 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.13 before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, no evidence was let in.

7. After recording the evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA- 31/F-1183 and both the claimants have sustained injuries in the said accident and they are entitled For compensation under the following different heads:-

In MVC Nos.619/2015 and MVC No.620/2015:-

8. Thus, the Tribunal has granted the compensation at Rs.2,21,480/- each in both the cases with interest at 7% per annum.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-KSRTC has filed the present appeals contending that the disability taken by the Tribunal is not proper and the award of compensation under different heads by the Tribunal is on higher side.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent- KSRTC Sri I.C. Patil would submit that the Tribunal has assessed the disability of both petitioners at 13% to the whole body. But, doctor has opined that disability at 21% to the particular limb. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken disability at 7%. He would further contend that the doctor has assessed disability after long gap of 2 years 8 months and hence, the disability assessed by the doctor itself is not proper. Both claimants have sustained simple injuries. Hence, they are not entitled for any compensation towards loss of future earning capacity and further the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7% is on higher side. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals.

11. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants Miss. Sudha Hulamani for Sri. Girish Hulamani would submit that the Tribunal has not taken the income of claimants properly. It has taken income at Rs.6,000/- instead of taking it at Rs.7,500/-.

12. Learned counsel for respondents would further submit that the compensation under different heads by the Tribunal is also on lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

13. Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying appeal papers and also Trial Court records, the only point that would arise for consideration is:-

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is j