AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal filed under Section 173 of the the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant takes exception to the judgment and award dated 4th July 2018 passed in MACP No.1552 of 2011.
The MSRTC has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error in not holding the claimant negligent in the occurrence of the accident. Exception is also taken to the impugned judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence on record correctly while awarding compensation to the claimant. A contention is also raised with regard to the excessive rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence on record indicates that the accident was not due to sole negligence, but involved contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in the occurrence of the accident. In this regard, she drew the attention of the Court, to the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the judgment. It is, therefore, her contention that the claimant be held to have contributed in the occurrence of accident to the extent of 50%. On the point of evidence with regard to disability and loss of income, it is contended that the evidence led by the claimant is not sufficient to grant any compensation to the claimant. Finally, it is submitted that the Tribunal has granted an excessive rate of interest at the rate of 9% per annum without considering the interest applicable to fixed deposits at the relevant time.
The learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned judgment. She drew the attention of the Court to the evidence on record which, according to her, indicates that there is no mistake on the part of the claimant, nor is there any admission to show that he breached the red signal and therefore the accident occurred. It is pointed out that, considering the spot panchnama and the situation of the spot, it cannot be said that there is any negligence on the part of the claimant in the said accident. On the point of compensation, attention of the Court is drawn to the evidence of the claimant himself as well as the testimony of Dr. Naresh Khanna (Exhibit 20). It is argued that, having regard to the nature of injuries and considering the occupation of the claimant as a welder, the disability assessed by him is correct in the present case.
No doubt, the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment that the petitioner had jumped the red signal and proceeded ahead while the driver of the bus was negotiating a U-turn of the bus. Though such a finding is recorded by the Tribunal, there is no supporting material evidence on record. The claimant never admitted to having breached the signal, nor was it suggested to him. Though the Corporation has examined the driver of the bus, his evidence is not enough to indicate that he had taken all due care and caution in driving the bus and that the accident had not occurred due to his negligence. In any case, the Tribunal has not held the claimant responsible for the accident in any manner. On appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason for causing interfere in the said finding.
On the point of disability as well as compensation, the claimant examined himself and stated that he was working as a welder and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. During cross-examination, no dispute was raised by the Corporation in this regard. As far as the assessment of disability is concerned, the evidence of Dr. Naresh Khanna indicates that, though he is not the treating doctor, he is an expert in assessing disability. Nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination to discard the assessment done by him. Moreover, it was suggested that the assessment of disability is on the higher side, meaning thereby that causing of disability to the claimant is not in dispute. The disability of the claimant is assessed to the extent of 41%, and considering the occupation of the claimant as a welder, it is stated that he would not be able to sit and fold his knees for the purpose of doing such work. It is thus clear that there is occupational/functional disability caused to the claimant.
The learned Tribunal has accepted the said assessment of disability as well as the income of the claimant since it was found reasonable. This Court finds no justification to cause interference in the said findings. Needless to say, unless the interest awarded is perverse, the Appellate Court is not expected to interfere with the same.
As a result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.
The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.