The court emphasized proportional compensation in personal injury claims, balancing contributory negligence and actual damages.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.2697/2018 dated 03.08.2019 by the XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes& Member, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had fixed 25% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and 75% on the driver of the BMTC bus and further questioning the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this Court.

2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. The facts of the case are that on 04.03.2018 at about 7:00 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding in the motor cycle on Hassan-Mysuru road, near Chikkavaddaragudi Village, K.R.Nagara Taluk, Mysuru, the driver of the KSRTC bus by driving it in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle caused the accident and as a result, the claimant sustained injuries.

3. The Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below:

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that though there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 25% on the claimant without any basis. It is submitted that as per the doctor, when the claimant had sustained 28% disability to the limb, the Tribunal had not at all granted any amount. Further, under the head of loss of amenities, pain and suffering, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses and towards loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal had not granted just and reasonable compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/KSRTC submits that the Tribunal had rightly held that there is 25% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. In fact, the contributory negligence that is fixed at 25% on the claimant is on the lower side. It is submitted that considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly considered and granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Considering the fracture injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is granting an amount Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and suffering Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.26,540/- and no interference is called for. The doctor had deposed that an amount of Rs.65,000/- is required for another surgery and the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses and this Court is granting an amount Rs.35,000/- under the head of future medical expenses. As the claimant was in hospital for six days, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses. Coming to the loss of future earnings, as per the doctor's evidence, the cla