The court emphasized the need for medical evidence to substantiate claims of permanent disability in compensation cases.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This appeal is filed by NWKSRTC, challenging the judgment and award dated 20.11.2014 passed in MVC No.1700/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal.

2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 01.09.2011, the petitioner was proceeding to his land on the left side of the road on Turamari-Kittur road and when he reached to the spot of accident, at that time, the driver of NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-1444 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, he has sustained the grievous injuries and filed the claim petition claiming compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

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

5. The tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

6. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Exhibit P1 to P10. The NWKSRTC examined the driver as RW.1 and no documents were marked.

7. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence , allowed the claim petition in part and held that the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of ₹1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit and directed NWKSRTC to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest.

8. The NWKSRTC being aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the NWKSRTC and learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the NWKSRTC submits that the petitioner to prove the permanent disability has not examined the doctor. In the absence of evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding global compensation of ₹1,25,000/-. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties.

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

14. There is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and the petitioner having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident and the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability, to prove the permanent disability, the petitioner has not examined the doctor. The tribunal, without considering the said fact has awarded a global compensation of ₹1,25,000/-.

15. From the perusal of the wound certificate marked as Ex.P7, with discloses that the petitioner has sustained grevious injuries but has not suffered any fracture. Considering the nature of injuries mentioned in Ex.P7, i.e., wound certificate, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side. The compensation awarded by the tribunal requires to be reduced from ₹ 1,25,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of ₹1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

O