Challenging

judgment

and

award

dated

29.06.2017 passed by IV Additional Senior Civil

Judge

and

Addl.

M.A.C.T.

Dharwad,

in

MVC

No.799/2015, this appeal is filed by claimant

seeking for enhancement of compensation.

Brief

facts

as

stated

are

that

on

28.07.2015,

when

claimant

was

riding

his

motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-25/EH-0611

near Sadhanakeri, Dharwad, bus belonging to

KSRTC

bearing

registration

no.KA-17/F-1465

driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner

dashed against motorcycle. In said accident, he

sustained injuries. Despite taking treatment he did

not recover fully and sustained disability.

- 3 -

3.

Claiming compensation, he filed claim

petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act

against owner of bus.

4.

On

service

of

summons,

respondent-

KSRTC denied negligence on behalf of its driver

and alleged that claimant in intoxicated condition,

caused accident and therefore, not entitled for

compensation.

5.

Based

on

pleadings,

tribunal

framed

issues and recorded evidence of claimant as PW1

and Dr.Sunil K.Jituri as PW2 and marked Exhibits

P1 to P13. In reply, bus driver was examined as

RW1 and Exhibit R1 got marked.

6.

On

consideration,

tribunal

held

that

accident

occurred

due

to

rash

and

negligent

driving of bus by its driver, claimant sustained

injuries and permanent physical disability and was

entitled for compensation from KSRTC. It assessed

- 4 -

total

compensation

of

Rs.2,34,160/-

with

8%

interest and held KSRTC liable to pay same. Not

satisfied with quantum compensation claimant is in

appeal.

7.

Sri. Santosh B.Mane, learned counsel

appearing for claimant-appellant submitted that,

though claimant was 35 years of age, barber by

occupation and earning Rs.15,000/- per month,

tribunal erred in taking his monthly income at

meager

amount

as

Rs.6,000/-

and

sought

enhancement.

It

was

further

submitted

that

claimant sustained fracture of right femur and

fracture of metacarpal of right hand ring and little

finger, assessed by PW2-Doctor to have caused

25% to 30% disability, tribunal considered meager

amount of 8% as loss of earning capacity and

awarded

inadequate

compensation

and

sought

enhancement. It was also submitted that while

awarding medical expenses, tribunal ignored two

- 5 -

medical bills on ground that they did not bear GST

TIN number which not justified. It was further

submitted that even compensation awarded under

other

heads

was

inadequate

and

sought

for

enhancement. Since PW2 had opined that for

removal of implants, claimant would require to

undergo one more operation, tribunal erred in not

awarding any compensation towards same.

8.

On other hand Shri S.C.Bhuti, learned

counsel for respondent no.2-KSRTC sought to

support award and opposed appeal. It was further

contended that tribunal had awarded excessive

rate of interest at 8% which would offset any claim

for enhancement.

9.

From above submission and since only

claimant is in appeal, only point that would arises

for consideration is:

- 6 -

“Whether

claimant

is

entitled

for

enhancement of compensation as sought

for?”

10. Insofar

as

monthly

income,

though

claimant stated that he was working as barber and

earning Rs.15,000/- per month, same was not

substantiated with evidence. In absence of specific

evidence, tribunal would be justified in assessing it

notionally, which for year 2015 is Rs.8,000/- as

per norms adopted by Karnataka State Legal

Services Committee for settlement of cases before

Lok Adalath. Therefore, tribunal would not be

justified in taking it at Rs.6,000/-. It would be just

and proper to take it at Rs.8,000/-.

11. Insofar as disability, claimant sustained

fracture of right femur and metacarpal of ring and

little finger. PW2-Dr.Sunil K.Jituri on examination

of claimant issued Ex.P13-Disability certificate. On

perusal is it seen that fractures were stated to

have united and there was no restriction in

- 7 -

movement or shortening. However, considering

disability assessed due to fracture of metacarpal in

light o