GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC Vs. KWAJA HUSSAIN SHAIKSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted under Sec. HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by original respondent No. 1, the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, and is directed against the judgment and award dated 30-1-1976 passed in Mis. (MVC) NO. 54 of 72 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwar.

(2.) The original petitionerKwaja Hussain Shaiksab Bellaryhas filed cross objections raising the plea 'that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs. 7,000, he received as exgratia payment from ESSO Company and has further submitted that the loss of future income calculated by the Tribunal is unreasonably low.

(3.) The facts leading up to the present appeal and cross-objections are these: Kwaja Hussain Shaiksab Bellary instituted an, application for compensation under Sec. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the personal injuries sustained by him as a result of the Motor accident that occurred on 25-3-1973 on Gadag-Hubli Road, 5 miles away from Hubli. According to him he was driving the tanker belonging to the ESSO Company from Gadag towards Hubli when the driver of a K. S. R. T. C. bus coming from Hubli in a rash and negligent manner came on the off side of the road and dashed against his tanker causing him grievous injuries. He has averred in %e petition that he suffered fracture of the chest bone, fracture of the right shoulder, fracture of skull, fracture of right forearm and injury to the left eye. On these averments he has claimed Rs. 25,000 from respondents as compensation. The respondent No. 1 was the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. and respondent No. 2 was the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus in question. Respondent No. 1 resisted the claim by filing statement of objections on 25-11-1972. He denied that the concerned K.S.R.T.C. bus was driven by respondent NO. 2 in a rash and negligent manner. He denied that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C bus driver. He alternatively affirmed that the earning mentioned by the petitioner was not correct and that the compensation claimed by him was excessive and exaggerated. Respondent No. 2 was subsequently given up as unnecessary party. On these pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues: