Court emphasizes the duty of tribunals to apply fair and equitable principles in determining just compensation for injuries sustained in accidents.

1. Leave granted. The appellant has preferred these appeals against the final judgment and order dated 6-9-2012 whereby the High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant bearing MFA No. 2386 of 2007 (MV) preferred for enhancement of compensation allowed in his favour by the judgment and award dated 11-12-2006 in MVC No. 1322 of 2005 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hassan, and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent Insurance Company bearing MFA No. 6612 of 2007.

2. The appellant is an advocate by profession. On 17-4-2005 while he was riding his motorbike and his wife was a pillion rider with him, he met with an accident involving motorbike of Respondent 2. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries over his hands, legs and spinal cord. He preferred claim petition on 5-12-2005 under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 15, 00, 000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs) with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from the respondent by way of just compensation for injuries, losses, medical expenses, loss of income due to disability, etc. By judgment and award dated 11-12-2006 the Tribunal considered the relevant facts as well as evidence and awarded total compensation of Rs. 8, 87, 300 (Rupees eight lakh eighty - seven thousand and three hundred only). This included an amount of Rs. 6, 17, 500 (Rupees six lakh seventeen thousand and five hundred only) on the head of "loss of income due to disability". The Tribunal also allowed interest at the rate of 6% p. a. from the date of petition till payment.

3. As noted earlier, the matter was taken in appeal to the High Court of Karnataka through two appeals, one preferred by the appellant complaining against inadequacy of the compensation and the other by the Insurance Company for reduction of the same. By the impugned judgment, the High Court reduced compensation of Rs.6,7,500 (Rupees six lakh seventeen thousand and five hundred only) under the head "loss of income due to disability" to Rs. 1, 50, 000 (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) and accordingly the total amount of Rs. 8, 87, 300 (Rupees eight lakh eighty - seven thousand and three hundred only) was reduced by a sum of Rs. 4, 67, 500 (Rupees four lakh sixty - seven thousand and five hundred only). The appeal of the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed without interfering with award of compensation on eight other heads.

4. Before noticing the submissions it is useful to indicate that there is no dispute over most of the relevant facts except what should have been accepted as the annual income of the appellant, what would be appropriate multiplier and what should be taken to be the loss of income due to admitted disability. At the time of the accident the appellant was aged about thirty - six years.

5. The accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. On the basis of the evidence of a treating physician, PW 3, a neurosurgeon, at the time of admission in the hospital it was found that the appellant had no strength in hands and legs, there was full loss of sensation below the neck and the urinary tract was blocked. The Tribunal has taken a note of all the relevant details and injuries in para 11 of its judgment and award wherein it has been accepted on the basis of medical evidence that the appellant has sustained whole body disability of 50%. That para 11 reads as follows:
"11. PW 3, Dr. Dhananjaya I. Bhat, the neurosurgeon of Mangala Hospital has