JACOB EAPEN Vs. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant appeals for enhancement of compensation, while the respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, cross-appeals for rejection of the claim, if not for reduction of compensation.

(2.) THE appellant was travelling by a bus, belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (shortly called 'the K S.R.T.C. hereinafter), KLX 3733 from Trivandrum to Palghat. During the small hours of 8-5-1980, the bus was involved in an accident, It rammed into a fully laden lorry (MYG 7855), pushing it 40 metres forward, before it capsized. Even the chassis was warped. The impact was so tremendous that several passengers were seriously injured. The Tribunal found on good evidence that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. This finding cannot be disputed ; and has not been seriously disputed.

(3.) THE claimant is a person of academic attainments, holding a Masters degree and also a Doctoral degree in Economics from the Keil University in West Germany. He was the Director of Indian School of Social Sciences and Editor of a journal,'Social Scientist', and also a Fellow of the Indian Institute of Economics, Member, State Planning Board and Member of the Syndicate of the Kerala. University. His potential to earn, it is said, is considerable but - due to his personal predilections, he was content with an honorarium of Rs. 1,500/- per mensem. As a result of the accident, he lost the assignments be held. Besides himself (as PW 5), PW 8 speaks of this. The appellant claimed in all a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,67,7/4/- instead. Treating the monthly earning as Rs. 1,500/-and applying a multiplier of 15 years, the Tribunal found that he would have earned Rs. 1,50,000/-. Clearly, there is an error in computation because Rs. 1,500/- per mensem multiplied by 12 months, further multiplied by 15 years would be Rs. 2,70,000/. The Tribunal deducted 25 per cent for future uncertainties. The bone of contention centres round the quantum of damages on account of loss of future earnings, the appellant contesting the award as meagre and the respondent as exaggerated. Award under other heads is only faintly challenged.