Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai

JUDGMENT

Navin Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the High Court, claiming inadequacy of compensation granted to him in a motor accident case.

3. The Appellant was travelling in a bus of the Respondent Corporation and met with an accident on 19.02.2010, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver who hit a lorry from behind. As a consequence of the injuries suffered, the left leg of the Appellant had to be amputated. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,08,850/-. The High Court in appeal enhanced the same to Rs. 5,10,350/-. The appeal preferred by the Respondent Corporation was dismissed.

4. Shri Ashwin Kotemath, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the compensation enhanced by the High Court is niggardly and grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries suffered. The Appellant was a painter by vocation. He had a daily income of Rs. 300/- cumulated at Rs. 9,000/- per month, supported by the evidence of his employer PW. 2, which has been wrongly rejected. The permanent disability of the Appellant contrary to the evidence of PW. 3, Dr. S. Ramachandra the treating Doctor, has been wrongly fixed at 25% of the whole body without any reasoning to support the same, in the nature of the injury, suffering, future medical treatment and loss of future income caused to the Appellant.

5. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the High Court has reasonably enhanced the compensation and it calls for no interference. The Appellant had failed to substantiate the claimed income with substantive evidence. The extent of disability suffered has been adequately assessed. The evidence of the employer and the treating doctor have all been considered adequately.

6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The Appellant was initially taken to the government hospital on the date of the accident but was shifted to a private hospital on 25.02.2010 where he remained as an inpatient till 16.09.2010 and also underwent surgery requiring amputation of his left leg from above the knee. PW. 3, the treating doctor, deposed that the Appellant had suffered Type III 'B' commuted fracture of Tibia and Fibula of the left leg with an active infection of Chronic Osteomyelitis emanating foul s........