AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai. J.
The claimant is in appeal. Allegedly while the appellant was travelling by a goods autorikshaw, he sustained injuries as a bus proceeding behind hit on the rear end of the vehicle. Against the claim of Rs.3 lakhs, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.93,875/- as compensation after reducing 25% finding that the driver of the goods autorikshaw by which the appellant was travelling has also contributed to the cause. The reason for fixing contributory negligence at 25% on the driver of the autorikshaw was that the said vehicle was overloaded. The award is under challenge in this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent - Insurance company who was the insurer of the bus involved in the accident. We have also perused the impugned award.
The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the reduction of 25% on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the goods autorikshaw by which the appellant was travelling is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel for the third respondent, per contra, would submit that reduction of 25% is justifiable as the Goods Autorikshaw by which the appellant was travelling was over loaded at the time of the accident. It is true that the appellant was an additional passenger in goods autorikshaw as the seating capacity of the same was only two. Evidently, three persons were there in the good autorikshaw. The finding of the learned Tribunal that overloading of the goods autorikshaw has also contributed to the cause of the accident is not acceptable as the accident happened while the goods autorikshaw was proceeding ahead of the offending bus. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the goods autorikshaw. The fact that the goods autorikshaw was overloaded is not a good reason to fix negligence on the driver of the goods autorikshaw by which the appellant was travelling. We are of the definite view that the award has to be interfered with and the finding of the learned Tribunal to reduce 25% on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the goods autorikshaw has to be set aside. We do so.
The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, by-stander''s expenses etc.are on the lower side.
The learned counsel for the third respondent invited our attention to the memorandum of appeal and submitted that the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On going through the memorandum of appeal, we see force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent as there is no specific challenge regarding the quantum of compensation awarded. So we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the quantum of compensation need not be interfered with. In the result, the appeal is allowed. We hold that the appellant is entitled to get full amount of Rs.1,24,900/- as compensation which was arrived at by the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned award shall stand modified as above.