JUDGMENT
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The respondents K.S.R.T.C., had filed M.F.A. No. 1931 of 2000 assailing the compensation granted as excessive. The petitioner-appellant herein is not notified. this Court dismissed the appeal in limine holding that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The petitioner has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Mr. D. Vijayakumar, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment in M.F.A. No. 1931 of 2000 and relied on the decision of this Court in M.F.A. No. 2493 of 2001.
3. The facts in the cited case M.F.A. No. 2493 of 2001 disclose that the injured petitioner had filed an appeal in M.F.A. No. 2001 of 2001. seeking enhancement. The respondents had also filed a cross-appeal seeking reduction of the compensation. M.F.A. No. 2001 of 2001 seeking enhancement is dismissed in limine without notice to respondents. While considering the appeal of the respondents for reduction, this Court held that the finding recorded by the co-ordinate Bench in the connected appeal would bind the parties. Therefore, dismissed the appeal of the K.S.R.T.C., on the ground that this Court cannot review nor can sit in appeal over the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench.
4. It is argued that this Court in M.F.A. No. 1931 of 2000 has held that the compensation awarded in this case is just and reasonable, the decision is rendered may be without notice to the petitioner, but still binds the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the appeal on technical ground.
5. The submissions made at the Bar are untenable. No doubt, a well considered decision on merits and the reasons stated in the connected appeal at the time of admission may be a good reason to reject the subsequent appeal of the other party. However, when the other party was not notified and heard it may not be correct to say that the observations made in the Order passed in limine should bind the other party. If the record otherwise disclose that petitioner is entitled to higher compensation it cannot be denied on the technical ground urged by the respondents. It is the duty of the court to give a just compensation. The position is otherwise if petitioner is heard and Order is passed. In my view, a subtle distinction is to be kept in mind between the appeals of the petitioners seeking enhancement dismissed in limine and the appeals of the respondents challenging the liability and the quantum. In the later case, if the Order is made without notice to petitioner, the appeal of petitioner cannot be dismissed on the stated technical ground. The decision of this Court in M.F.A. No. 2493 of 2001 does not lay down the ratio as sought to be argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. The petitioner has sustained crush injury to the left hand with fracture of III and IV metacarpal, fracture of lower end of ulna and concussive head injury in the motor vehicle accident. The 4th and 5th fingers of the left hand are shortened. The medical opinion discloses that the petitioner cannot carry on the driving avocation because of the shortened fingers since he cannot have proper grip over the steering. The total body disability is assessed at 30 per cent and the income of the petitioner is to be assessed at Rs. 3,000 p.m.
7. Rs. 30,000 to be awarded for pain and agony; Rs. 30,000 towards medical expenses and incidental expenses relating to treatment; Rs. 30,000 to be awarded for loss of amenities and discomfort on account of disability; Rs. 1,29,600 (Rs. 900 x 12 x 12 multiplier) to be awarded for loss of future income on account of disability and Rs. 9,000 to be awarded for the loss of income during the laid up period for treatment.
8. In all, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,28,600 with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till payment as against Rs. 1,32,000 awarded by the Tribunal.
