Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the

consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

2.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgement

and award passed in MVC No.922/2014 on the file of

Presiding Officer, FTC-III Court at Belagavi, questioning

the quantum of compensation.

3.

Factual matrix of the case of the claimant

before the Tribunal is that on 05.05.2014 at about 9.15

a.m. he was travelling in MSRTC bus and when the said

bus reached near main bus stand, Sangli from where he

has to take his further journey by catching another bus. In

the said bus he took journey by standing since there were

no seats available and when the said bus reached near

main bus stand of Sangli town, the driver suddenly turned

the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the

- 3 -

petitioner jerked and thrown out from the bus. As a result,

he had sustained severe injuries and immediately he was

shifted to Bharati hospital and he took treatment for 25

days as inpatient by spending Rs.3,50,000/-. It is also his

case that he was aged 21 years and he was doing

centering work and earning Rs.700/- per day and due to

the accidental injuries he was subjected to surgery and his

left leg was amputed and hence he become permanently

disabled to the extent of 100%. Hence, he laid a claim

before the Tribunal.

4.

In support of his case, the claimant examined

as PW.1 and doctor was examined as PW.2 and got

marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.19. On the other hand,

the respondent has not led any evidence.

5.

The Tribunal after considering both the oral and

documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation

of Rs.9,93,000/- with 9% interest.

- 4 -

6.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

award, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant

would vehemently contend that the Court has to take

functional disability of 100% but the Tribunal has taken

only 70% and the Tribunal has taken income of Rs.200/-

per day instead of he is deposing that he was getting

Rs.700/- per day. He also submits that the compensation

awarded on other heads is also meager and hence, it

requires interference of this Court.

8.

He further contends that in view of the

judgements in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok

Kumar (2014 (5) SCC 330) and Syed Sadiq and

Others

vs.

Divisional

Manager,

United

India

Insurance Company Limited (2014) 2 SCC 735, the

Tribunal ought to have taken future prospects and the

same has not been considered and the Tribunal ought to

have awarded interest at 12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a.

- 5 -

9.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

MSRTC would submit that in the absence of any

documentary proof, the Tribunal has rightly taken the

income at Rs.6,000/- per month and also awarded

compensation on all other heads and the compensation

awarded on the head future loss of earning by considering

70% disability is exorbitant and no grounds are made out

to enhance the compensation.

10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

the following points would arise for consideration:

i.

Whether the Tribunal has committed an error

in

not

awarding

just

and

reasonable

compensation?

ii.

What order?

11. Regarding Point No.1: Having heard the

learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

material on record, the injured has sustained injuries to

his left leg and he has undergone surgery and his leg

below the knee was also amupted and he had suffered

- 6 -

degloving injury and compound fracture. Learned counsel

for the claimant relied upon Exs.P.12 to 14 to show that

his leg was also amputed. Apart from that he has also

examined doctor as PW.2 and he has assessed the

disability at 70% to the left lower limb. The Tribunal has

taken income of Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- per

month. The accident has taken place in the year 2014 and

the notional income for the accidental claims of the year

2014 would be Rs.7,500/-. Hence, the compensation on

the head loss of fu