AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The claimant in OP(MV) No. 81/08 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant. He, while driving an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-11/M-2098, happened to hit on a Maruti car with Registration No. KL-7/Z-801, which came from the opposite direction and sustained injuries and he filed an application for compensation, alleging negligence against the first respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the Maruti car insured with the second respondent, claiming an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained and consequential disability caused. The first respondent did not contest the case. The second respondent filed a written statement, denying the allegation of negligence against the first respondent, but attributed negligence against the petitioner and also challenged the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.
After evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that in the absence of any oral evidence adduced on the side of the claimant and in the absence of scene mahazar and AMVI report produced, it can only be presumed that it was a case of head on collision and apportioned the liability between the first respondent and the petitioner as 50% each. Since except the wound certificate, no other document was produced, the Tribunal fixed only Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and only deducted 10% for contributory negligence for the purpose of awarding compensation and awarded Rs. 4,500/- as compensation, making the second respondent liable to pay the amount with interest. Dissatisfied with the finding of the court below regarding the question of negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant has come up with this appeal.
Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening negligence on the appellant, especially, when the criminal case was registered against the driver of the car. Further, the quantum of compensation awarded is also less.
The learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no interference is called for, as the Tribunal has considered all the aspects correctly and justly.
It is an admitted fact that it is a case of collision between two vehicles one of which was driven by the appellant. There is no oral evidence adduced. It is also, in a way, admitted that both the vehicles were coming in the opposite direction. The scene mahazar was also not produced so as to enable the Tribunal to find out the negligence on the part of the drivers. So, in the absence of any evidence adduced on the side of the appellant, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that both the appellant and the first respondent were equally responsible for the incident and we do not find any reason to interfere with this aspect. As regards compensation is concerned, Annexure A2 wound certificate shows that the appellant sustained nasal bone fracture and multiple abrasions on knee and fore-arm. He would have undergone inpatient treatment for some time and he would have lost income during the period of treatment. Even after discharge from the hospital, it cannot be said that he would have gone for work immediately. Considering the circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- fixed by the Tribunal appears to be very low. However, considering the over-all circumstances and also considering the fact that the Tribunal has taken only 10% as the percentage for contributory negligence for awarding the compensation, we feel that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- can be fixed as the total compensation payable to the appellant, after deducting his contribution to the accident. So, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 5,500/-, which, the second respondent is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till the date of payment.
In the result, the appellant is granted an additional compensation of Rs. 5,500/-, which is liable to be paid by the second respondent with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation. Two months'' time is granted to the Insurance Company to pay this amount.
The appeal is disposed of with the above modification of the award.