Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted. Mahadeva Shetty (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') suffered serious injuries on 4.6.1995 as a result of a vehicular accident where a bus bearing No. KA-01/F 5097 belonging to Karnataka State Road Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was involved. According to the claimant, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of this bus. As a result of the accident the bus plunged into a ravine resulting in serious injuries to the spinal cord of the claimant and made him a paraplegic. He filed an application for compensation before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Nanjangud, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') claiming compensation of Rs. 9.83 lakhs. According to the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') the claimant was a Mason by profession. The bus in which he was he was a passenger plunged into a pit by rolling down from a great height, and he sustained injuries and a few persons lost their lives on account of the accident. He was hospitalized for about 7 weeks i.e. days from 5.6.1995 to 23.7.1995. There was fracture of T12 vertebra and consequent damage to nerve system of the whole body below the hips and the body has been functionless. Limbs have become functionless permanently due to failure of nerve system due to accident and he has also lost sexual power. He was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of accident. It was stated that that he was of good health at the time of accident.
(2.) STAND of the Corporation in reply to the claim petition was that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving, but an act of God and that there was no rashness and/ or negligence as claimed by the claimant. On consideration of the materials on record and the evidence of witnesses examined, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2.20 lakhs. It was stipulated that the amount be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from 28.12.1999, i.e. the date when claimant tendered evidence in support of the claim. Matter was carried in appeal by the claimant before the Karnataka High Court for enhancement of compensation. The Corporation supported the order dated 24.5.2000 of the Tribunal taking the stand that there was no infirmity in the order. In appeal the High Court raised the amount of compensation to Rs. 6.25 lakhs. Under various heads, the amounts of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court are as follows : JUDGEMENT_266_SUPREME5_2003Html1.htm
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that without any rational basis the High Court has enhanced the compensation, while the Tribunal under the Act had indicated cogent reasons for the award made by it. It is pointed that the claimant was working as a Mason and he did not have permanent job. His engagement depended on several factors, like availability of engagements. When it rains, and in several other periods, normally a Mason would not have work. That being the position the High Court was not justified in taking of Rs. 15,000/- as monthly income. The rate of interest justified by the High Court is on the higher side. In any event the accident was an act of God and no compensation is payable. In response learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the High Court has considered all the legal and factual factors and has rightly awarded the amount, particularly when disability was 100% and the claimant has become a cripple. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Nagesha v. M. S. Krishna and Anr. (1997(8) SCC 349) to contend that the quantum of compensation awarded was meet and the proper.;