D.C., KSRTC Vs. BASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the claimant before the MACT in MVC No.187/2003. The claim petition was lodged by the appellant claiming compensation for the injuries that he suffered on account of accidental injuries. The accident occurred on 28.08.2002. Claimant contended that he sustained said injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to respondent no.2 - Corporation. Appellant contended that he was working as constable in Central Reserve Police as on the date of the accident. He further contended that because of the permanent disability suffered by him he was removed from service as he was found to be unfit for combatant duties by the Central Reserve Police Force. The tribunal granted Rs.4,33,296/- towards loss of future income and in all awarded total compensation of Rs.6,49,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Appellant being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal has filed this present appeal in MFA No.30163/2013.

(2.) The respondent-Corporation in MVC No.187/2003 has also challenged the quantum of compensation in MFA No.32425/2013.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant's counsel in MFA No.30163/2013 submits that the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.7,061/- as per Ex.P.12 as on the date of accident and his last drawn salary as on 06.06.2010 was Rs.10,620/- as per Exs.P.177 and P.179. He further contended that he has lost about 20 years of service as he was removed from service by the CRPF as he was found unfit, and the same is attributable to the permanent disability suffered by him on account of the accidental injuries. He further contended that the tribunal has erred in taking 20% permanent disability for determining the compensation payable towards loss of future income instead of 100% having regard to the fact that the appellant was removed from service after being found unfit for combatant duties. His removal from service was premature and it was because of permanent disability suffered by him owing to accidental injury. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation by holding the permanent disability of the appellant at 100%. He further contended that amount of pension which he is drawing pursuant to discharge from service should not be excluded for the purpose of determining compensation towards loss of future income, and in support, also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Shashi Sharma and others in Civil Appeal No.9654/2016, wherein the Apex Court at Para No.16 held as under :- "16. The principle discernable from the exposition in Helen C.Rebello's case (supra) is that if the amount would be due to the dependants of the deceased even otherwise, the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Act of 1988. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that loss of income is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in terms of the Act of 1988. The component of quantum of loss of income, inter alia, can be pay and wages which otherwise would have been earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him due to motor accident. If the dependents of the deceased employee, however, were to be compensated by the employer in that behalf, as is predicated by the Rules of 2006 - to grant compassionate assistance by way of ex- gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased Government employee who dies in harness, it is unfathomable that the dependents can still be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or likely loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for compensation under the Act of 1988."