ash 1 fa-285.01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.285 OF 2001 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Depot., Karnataka. .. Appellant Vs Madhukar Shankar Dhotre. .. Respondent -- Shri C.M. Lokesh i/by Shri G.S. Hegde for the Appellant. Ms Madhavi Twanandi for the Respondent. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 7TH JULY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and award passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which a claim petition filed by the Respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been allowed. The compensation of Rs.45,500/- ( inclusive of no fault liability ) was granted by the Tribunal along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The sole Appellant-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is the original Opponent No.2. The offending vehicle is the bus owned by the Appellant which was involved in the accident. ash 2 fa-285.01 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is that though the Tribunal disbelieved the case of the Respondent that he was employed in a shop drawing the salary of Rs. 800/- per month, by taking monetary loss of income of Rs.400/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 10, an amount of compensation which is on the higher side has been granted. He submitted that there is no evidence of expenditure incurred on medical treatment. He submitted that the Tribunal has not even referred to the injuries sustained by the Respondent and there is no discussion as regards the nature of the injuries. He submitted that there is absolutely no basis for grant of compensation of Rs.53,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability). The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree. 4. It is true that though there is an evidence in the form of examination of medical officer and the medical certificate at Exhibit-52, there is no discussion on this aspect by the learned Member of the Tribunal. However, the Appellate Court can always consider the evidence and record findings. A reference will have to be made to the deposition of Dr. Sunita Ravindra Devarshi. The said witness was working as the Medical Officer in CPR Hospital, Kolhapur. She stated that on 19th February, 1989, the Respondent was injured and was ash 3 fa-285.01 admitted in the hospital who was referred by the concerned Police Station. As regards the injuries, she stated thus:- “He had following injuries. 1. CLW about 4 x 1 x ½ Cms. On fore head 2. CLW about 12x1 x1/2 cms. On left knee joint 3. CLW 3 x 1 x 1 x ½ cm 1 cm. below right eye 4. CLW x 3 x 1 x ½ cm 1-5 cm. Below right eye 5. CLW 1 x ½ x ½ cm on lower lip. 6. Compound fracture tibia febula right leg lower 1/3 7. Right eye ball detachment. Injury nos.6 and 7 are the permanent injuries. Therefore it affected permanently on his working capacity. His right leg is permanently disabled, due to injury no.6. His right leg is permanently disabled due to injury no.6. I cannot say whether due to injury no.7 his eye sight was adversely affected. Today I have brought original case papers. The xerox copy produced on record is true and correct copy as per original. It bears my signature. Its contents are correct. It is at exh.52.” 5. As regards the nature of the injuries and after effects of the injuries, there is absolutely no cross-examination. The witness stated that as a result of the compound fracture, the right leg of the Respondent is permanently disabled. The Medical Officer stated that due to right eye ball detachment and the injury to the leg, the capacity ash 4 fa-285.01 of the Respondent to work was permanently affected. There is no cross- examination made on this aspect. 6. Therefore, on account of pain and suffering, fractures and disability, a substantial amount has to be awarded. In view of unchallenged evidence of the Medical Officer, there is bound to be a loss of earning capacity. At the time of accident, the age of the Respondent was 26 years. By estimating the monthly loss of income at Rs.400/- per month, the multiplier of 10 has been applied. There is no separate amount granted on account of disability as well as pain and suffering. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.53,000/- is reasonable and no interference is called for. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )