THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

MFA.No.1591/2022 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. MFA.No.372/2020 is by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for brevity, "the BMTC") challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 passed in M.V.C.No.6981/2018 by the VIII Additional Small Causes and MACT at Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant in M.F.A.No.1591/2022.

3. The factual aspect of the matter is that on 27.10.2018, the claimant was travelling in motorbike bearing registration No.KA-01-HR-7493 towards National College playground at around 6.00 a.m. in N.R. Road near Lucia hotel, at that time, the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-1455 driven by its driver in a rash and negligently with high speed, dashed against the motorbike of the claimant. As a result, he tossed from the motorcycle and fell down to the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, where he undergone surgery. As such, after registering FIR against the driver of the BMTC bus by the jurisdictional police, a claim petition was filed.

4. Before the Tribunal, to prove the claim, the claimant has examined three witness on his behalf and marked 13 documents. The insurance company contested the matter and examined his officer as RW.1.

5. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant filed MFA.No.1591/2022 and the BMTC has also filed M.F.A.No.372/2020.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the learned counsel for the BMTC.

7. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant primarily contended that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the BMTC vehemently contended that the Tribunal has totally erred while fixing the liability on the BMTC. According to him, the claimant has equally contributed negligence to the accident and as per Ex.P3 - spot mahazar panchanama and Ex.P4 - spot sketch, the accident had occurred in the middle of the road and as such, the claimant would have avoided the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly relied on the evidence of PW.2/Doctor who had not treated the injured claimant and has wrongly assessed the disability at 28% to the right lower limb. Further, he also contended that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded 9% interest instead of 6% interest which is against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. With these submissions, he prays to modify the award by allowing the appeal filed by the BMTC.

9. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the evidence available on record.

10. As could be gathered from evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P3 and P4, the same reveals that the accident had occurred near a place called 'N.R. Road'. Ex.P4 - sketch depicts that the said road was one way road and the claimant was riding his motorbike in a right direction. On the other hand, the BMTC bus came from the opposite direction in one way road. As a result of which, the accident had occurred. Ex.P4 is supported by a Panchanama-Ex.P3. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the BMTC that the claimant has also equally contributed negligence for the occurrence of the accident cannot be accepted.

11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the BMTC in respect of evidence of PW.2/Doctor with regard to disability assessed by him also cannot be accepted for the reason tha