MANAGING DIRECTOR N.E.K.R.T.C, BIDAR DIVISION REP BY ITS DIVISION CONTROLLER NEKRTC, BIDAR DIVISION BIDAR NOW REPTD BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE GULBARGA-585102 Vs. NARAYAN S/O DATTOBA PURI, BIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 68 days in preferring this appeal by M/S NEKRTC, Bidar Division, Bidar directed against the Judgment and order dated 29th October 2011 passed in MVC. No. 603/2010 on the file of Fast Track -II and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bidar, Camp at Bhalki, complaining that the quantum of global compensation at Rs. 1,91,729/ - to be payable by the Corporation in favour of the respondent due to injuries suffered by him, while travelling in the bus belonging to the Corporation proceeding from Tirupati to Dharuwadi and as the driver of the bus applied breaks suddenly while the bus was near Anneholla near the land of Mashetty as a result of which the respondent -claimant had been thrown out of the bus and had suffered injuries. Application is filed seeking for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of Chief Law Officer of the Corporation. I have heard Sri. Shivashankar Manur, Learned Counsel for the appellant -Corporation on the merits of the appeal. As I do not find much merit in the appeal itself, no purpose will be served by issuing notice to the respondent only on the application for condonation of delay and therefore appeal and application are disposed of as under.

(2.) SUBMISSION of Sri. Shivashankar Manur, Learned Counsel for the appellant -Corporation is that the Tribunal has taken the future loss in earning capacity due to the disability and has fixed it at 10% of whole body disability; that it is on the higher side and that the respondent had not even given his age precisely; that there were as many as three versions and his age had been indicated to be 50 years in the complaint, the wound certificate indicates his age to be 60 years and in the claim petition, it is claimed to be 40 years of age. Submission is that because the Tribunal has taken the lowest of these three figures, the multiplier applied is '16' and which is not the correct multiplier as if the age should have been taken either 60 or 50 multiplier would have been 9 or 13 as the case may be.

(3.) A perusal of the Judgment and order indicates that the Tribunal did notice that the medical evidence available on record and the opinion of the Doctor was to the effect that the respondent claimant had suffered whole body disability to the extent of 15 to 18% as against the disability of right lower limb at 35% to 40%. The whole body disability of 10% adopted by the Tribunal can never be said to be on the higher side. The appellant it appears has not seriously disputed the age except for the omnibus denial of occupation and everything in one sentence. In the circumstances, if the Tribunal has taken the age as claimed by the claimant, I do not find much scope for interference in an appeal of this nature. The whole body disability is definitely not on the higher side as against the medical opinion of 15 to 18%. The Tribunal has adopted only 10% whole body disability for the purpose of quantifying the future loss of earning capacity. Overall, I do not find any excess compensation having been awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries that the claimant had suffered, but on the other hand appears to be conservative. Therefore, there is no need for interference with the Judgment and order of the Tribunal.