SIDDARAJU @ SIDDU S/O SIDDU Vs. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O.12, JAYALAKSHMI MANSION, 2ND FLOOR, 1001/56, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-10 AND M.S. MANJULA, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY, CHIKKA SHAMANNA BUILDING,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the claimant is that on 12.10.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., when the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider in the motor bike bearing No. KA 05 EL 3680 on Bangalore -Kanakapura road, near KNS Circle, a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 05 P 9911 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result of the same, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. On a claim petition being filed under Section );">166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 2,70,200/ -. On an appeal, the same was remanded for fresh consideration. Thereafter, by the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal awarded additional compensation of Rs. 1,87,408/ - along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. Seeking enhancement, the present appeal is filed. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows: -

(2.) PW -1 is the doctor who has examined the claimant on the first occasion. He has assessed the disability of the claimant at 50%. Thereafter, amputation took place to the right leg below the knee. PW -3 is the second doctor who has examined the claimant after the amputation. He has stated that there is a permanent disability of 75% to the limb. However, the Tribunal held the disability at 25%. I'am unable to accept the percentage of disability as attributed by the Tribunal. The doctor who has examined the claimant has stated that there is a 75% disability. There is no sustainable reason given by the Tribunal to disbelieve the same. The right limb below the knee of the claimant has been amputated. PW -3 has further deposed that the claimant is unable to walk or stand without support and is not able to attend to his normal routine work. Under these circumstances, the doctor assessed the permanent disability as 75% of the limb and 25% disability to the whole body. The claimant is said to be a mechanic. His right leg below the knee has been amputated. He would not be in a position to walk or stand. What can a man do without his leg. He is crippled. In view of the evidence of PW -2 and PW -3, I'am of the considered view that the disability of the claimant should be necessarily held at 90%.

(3.) SO far as income, the Tribunal held the same at Rs. 3,750/ - p.m. The claimant by relying on his salary certificate vide Ex. P15 contends that he was earning Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. The employer has not been examined. Hence, the Tribunal disbelieved the same.