DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC Vs. MAHADEVA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. Mahadeva Shetty (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') suffered serious injuries on 4.6.1995 as a result of a vehicular accident where a bus bearing No. KA-01/F 5097 belonging to Karnataka State Road Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was involved. According to the claimant, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of this bus. As a result of the accident the bus plunged into a ravine resulting in serious injuries to the spinal cord of the claimant and made him a paraplegic. He filed an application for compensation before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Nanjangud, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') claiming compensation of Rs. 9.83 lakhs. According to the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') the claimant was a Mason by profession. The bus in which he was he was a passenger plunged into a pit by rolling down from a great height, and he sustained injuries and a few persons lost their lives on account of the accident. He was hospitalized for about 7 weeks i.e. days from 5.6.1995 to 23.7.1995. There was fracture of T12 vertebra and consequent damage to nerve system of the whole body below the hips and the body has been functionless. Limbs have become functionless permanently due to failure of nerve system due to accident and he has also lost sexual power. He was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of accident. It was stated that that he was of good health at the time of accident.

(2.) STAND of the Corporation in reply to the claim petition was that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving, but an act of God and that there was no rashness and/ or negligence as claimed by the claimant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that without any rational basis the High Court has enhanced the compensation, while the Tribunal under the Act had indicated cogent reasons for the award made by it. It is pointed that the claimant was working as a Mason and he did not have permanent job. His engagement depended on several factors, like availability of engagements. When it rains, and in several other periods, normally a Mason would not have work. That being the position the High Court was not justified in taking of Rs. 15,000/- as monthly income. The rate of interest justified by the High Court is on the higher side. In any event the accident was an act of God and no compensation is payable.