The General Manager, Internal Insurance, KSRTC, Bangalore vs Jayapal

K. Somashekar, J.—Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to in this appeal, as per their rank before the Tribunal.

The KSRTC., the owner-cum-insurer (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'' for short) has preferred this appeal, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 30-6-2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 1308/2008. on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Athani, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,52,300/-.

The facts of the case are that:

On 23-5-2008 at about 3.00 p.m., when the injured-claimant and his friend were proceeding to Shiruguppi on a motorcycle near Kagwad, the bus belonged to the Corporation bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1252 came in a high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed to motorcycle. Due to impact, the rider of the motorcycle died at the spot. The claimant, who was a pillion rider of the said motorcycle, has sustained grievous injuries on his head, fracture of left forearm and other injuries. After the accident, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum wherein he underwent surgery and took treatment at Miraj and other hospital and spent huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses. After the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner and insurer of the bus, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

After service of notice, the Corporation, the owner-cum-insurer of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer hits filed its written statements and contested the claim petition. While admitting the coverage of the insurance, as on the date of accident, the Corporation contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and that the claim petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., the owner and insurer of the motorcycle.

In support of his claim, the claimant has examined himself as PW. 1 and the Doctors who treated him as PWs. 2 and 3 and got marked 140 documents as at Exs.P.1 to P. 140. On behalf of the Corporation, the driver of the bus has been examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked.

The Tribunal, on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1252 and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,52,300/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads.

SI. No.

Head under which compensation is granted

Amount Rs.

1

Loss of future earnings (7000 x 12 x 17/100=1,42,800)

1,42,800

2

Pain and sufferings

15000

3

Medical expenses

68000

4

Attendance charges

1500

5

Loss of comforts and amenities

10000

6

Future medical expenses

15000

Total

2,52,300

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Corporation, the owner-cum-insurer has preferred this appeal inter alia contended that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. That the Tribunal has committed an error adopting multiplier of 17 and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment and award and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material on record, particularly, oral testimony of PW.1 who is an eye-witness to the accident coupled with the FIR (Ex.P.1), IMV report (Ex.P.5) has rightly held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Admittedly, as could be seen from the birth certificate issued by the competent authority which has been produced and marked as at Ex.R 118, the injured claimant was aged 26 years, as on the date of the accident and as per the dictum of the Apex court in the case of Sarla Verma (AIR 2009 SC 3104) the appropriate multiplier made applicable would be 17 and the same has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.

The injured-claimant is an Advocate by profession and he has produced certificate to that effect, issued by the Bar Association, Athani and certified copies of the vakalathnama filed by him in the cases as at Exs P. 115 to 117. Apart from that, the claimant had some agricultural income as well, as could be seen from the RTC as at Ex.P.114. Thus, the Tribunal is justified in determining the income of the claimant at Rs.7000/- per month to assess the compensation payable towards ''loss of future income''.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the medical records produced during the enquiry before the Tribunal would clearly reveals that for an initial three days the claimant was unconscious and he took treatment as an inpatient from 23-5-2008 to 29-5-2008 and as per the wound certificate it is seen that he sustained bleeding from both ears, contusion and swelling on right occipital region, punctured wound on left forearm, injury to left thumb nail, fracture of both bones of left forearm and as could be seen from the disability certificates as at Exs.P.113 and 140. he sustained permanent physical disability to the extent of 40% to left upper limb and 10% permanent disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body. Thus, having regard to the date of accident, nature of injuries, period of treatment, avocation of the claimant being an Advocate and consequential permanent physical disability sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal, on evaluation of the evidence on record in a proper perspective awarded just and reasonable compensation which does not call for interference in this appeal. There is no substance in any of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as, the same is devoid of merit.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit before this court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

There shall be no order as to the costs.