Amaresh Mali Patil vs Jalal Sab

Budihal R.B., J.—This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 21.6.2010 passed by the MACT and FTC-I, Raichur in MVC No. 336/2009 and also the quantum of compensation awarded in the case.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition before the tribunal is that on 30.9.2008 at 7.30 p.m. on Sindhanur-Raichur Road, near Balaganur cross, when the claimant was proceeding along with his son Kareem Sab on the bicycle, at that time, respondent No. 1 being driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-36/Q-5087 came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the bicycle on which the claimant was going and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to hospital and case was registered against respondent No. 1 therein in Cr. No. 137/2008. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fracture injury and also the other injuries to head and other parts of the body. Hence, he filed the claim petition for compensation. It was denied by respondent No. 1 contending that he was not responsible for the accident in question. He had stated that he had not at all dashed to the claimant and false case had been registered against him. The respondent had also denied age, occupation and injuries and the manner of the accident as stated by the claimant. The compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the said pleadings, the tribunal framed the three issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, ultimately allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs. 1,07,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the accident is stated to have been occurred on 30.9.2008, FIR was registered on 5.10.2008 and hence, there is delay of 5-6 days in registering the FIR. Even with regard to the factum of accident and sustaining injuries by the claimant in the accident is concerned, there is no satisfactory and acceptable evidence adduced before the tribunal and even then the tribunal has wrongly accepted the same. The percentage of disability taken at 15% is also on the higher side and hence, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the tribunal be set aside. It is also his contention that the said vehicle is also not involved in the accident. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the tribunal while allowing the claim petition.

Perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and also the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case.

So far as delay in registering FIR is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others, , wherein it is held as under:

"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 140 and 166 - Motor Accident - Rear side of truck hitting appellant, aged 8 years, causing severe injuries of permanent nature - delay of three months in lodging FIR with police, claim for compensation - tribunal and High Court dismissing claim petition on ground of delay in lodging FIR with police - appeal - Held, appellant had suffered severe injuries of permanent nature resulting in his not being able to control his urination - certificate issued by Medical Board assessing his permanent disability at 50% -certificate not controverted by respondents - Basing on said certificate, Supreme Court awarding Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. - Orders of tribunal and High Court set aside - Appeal allowed." Therefore, looking to the principles enunciated in the said decision, it is applicable to the case on hand.

The police have conducted investigation in the present case and filed charge sheet against the appellant and the said charge sheet materials were not at all challenged by the appellant either seeking reinvestigation of the matter or for quashing of the proceedings registered against him. Looking to these materials and the evidence of the claimant before the tribunal and when the tribunal is satisfied with regard to the materials, only on the ground of delay, entire case of the respondent claimant cannot be rejected.

Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, basing on the evidence and also disability certificate, it has taken the disability at 15% though the Doctor P.W. 3 has stated that the claimant has sustained 15-20% disability. The findings recorded by the tribunal with regard to percentage of disability is supported by reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that percentage of disability taken is on the higher side. Looking to the compensation awarded on other heads and taking the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-, it is reasonable, though the claimant is entitled for more amount under the head loss of earnings. Therefore, looking to the quantum of compensation on each heads, it does not require any interference by this Court as it is reasonable and proper. No illegality has been committed by the tribunal nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in coming to such conclusion. Hence, the appeal is rejected. The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal.