The court assessed the compensation for injury based on the established evidence of physical disability and loss of professional capability due to accident-related injuries.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeals seek to challenge the Judgment and award dated 15.02.2018 in MVC No.102/2016 passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,78,400/- to the claimant (appellant in MFA No.5293/2018) along with interest at 6% per annum.

2. Both the appeals are filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) who is the appellant in MFA No.7479/2018 seeks a reduction of the amount awarded, while the learned counsel for the claimant seeks for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 28.11.2013 at around 11.00 p.m., when the appellant/claimant was driving a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18/AA.4599 near Muguluvalli village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 40/F 477 stated to be driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Lorry, which was being driven in the opposite direction. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fractures in his legs and was hospitalized at M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. The appellant/claimant had also taken treatment as an in-patient as well as an out- patient for more than six months and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It was the case of the appellant/claimant that he was working as a lorry driver and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. However, due to the accident and injuries caused, he was unable to discharge his day-to-day work. Thus a claim petition was filed. The petition was contested by the respondents being driver of the KSRTC bus and it’s owner.

4. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues based on the pleadings of the parties:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 28.11.2013, at about 11.00 p.m., while he was proceeding in the Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA 18/AA 4599 near Muguluvalli village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Regn.No.KA.40/F-477 drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries?

2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the reasons stated in the written statement?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4. What order?”

5. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2 while respondent No.1 who is the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as R.W.1. The learnedTribunal after examining the evidence and documents filed by the parties reached a conclusion that considering the nature of injuries and the fact that the appellant/claimant was not in a position to walk independently during the treatment period, the compensation was to be awarded towards various heads including pain and sufferings, medical expenses and attendant charges. In addition, the compensation was also awarded towards loss of future income by taking the percentage of disability at 10%. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/KSRTC raises three contentions. Firstly, he submits that the appellant/claimant has not produced any discharge summary in support of the injuries sustained by him. Secondly, he submits that no proof of claimant being a driver has been placed on record. Lastly, he submits that no evidence of disability has been placed on r