Nayab Singh vs Randhir Singh and Others

Jaspal Singh, J.—Feeling dissatisfied qua quantum of compensation awarded to appellant vide impugned award dated April 11, 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short "Tribunal"), on account of sustaining injuries, appellant/claimant has preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation as well as for reversing the findings with regard to contributory negligence to the extent of 25% on his part. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated October 23, 2003 and record of learned Tribunal was requisitioned and received.

Learned counsel for appellant has assailed the impugned award dated April 11, 2003 submitting that learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 25% of compensation amount on account of alleged contributory negligence on the part of appellant/claimant without appreciating the fact that accident was caused due to sole negligence of tractor driver who turned his tractor abruptly without transmitting any signal and blowing horn. Even otherwise, as per the depositions of Nayab Singh injured/claimant accident solely occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor. RW-1 Sukhdev Singh driver has also admitted the accident though an effort has been made by him to shift the negligence to the scooterist. Admittedly, FIR was registered against the tractor''s driver for causing accident and he is facing trial before the criminal Court. The findings recorded by learned Tribunal are absolutely against the evidence adduced by claimant.

It was further stressed by learned counsel for the appellant that amount of compensation so awarded is also inadequate and unjust. Due to the impact of accident, appellant/claimant sustained fractures of both the bones of left leg below the knee joint due to which he is rendered incapable for doing manual work. He was working as a Carpenter. As per disability certificate issued by Medical Board, he (appellant) suffered 15% permanent disability and shortening of leg by one inch due to mal union of fracture. Learned Tribunal while substituting his own views has only assessed permanent disability to the extent of 10% on conjectural assumptions and awarded an inadequate compensation. So, the findings/observations made by learned Tribunal are liable to be reversed and amount of compensation, so awarded deserves to be enhanced, that too while holding that there was no fault or contributory negligence on the part of claimant/appellant.

These arguments have been controverted by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submitting that just and adequate compensation has already been awarded by learned Tribunal and since contributory negligence is also proved on the part of claimant/appellant, learned Tribunal has rightly concluded the contributory negligence to the extent of 25% and prayer for dismissal of instant appeal being devoid of merit and that too with special cost, was thus made.

This Court has given an anxious thought to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

As far as contributory negligence to the extent of 25% on the part of claimant/appellant is concerned, the case of the claimant is that he was overtaking the tractor and tractor driver took the tractor on its extreme right side. The claimant/appellant was following the tractor and if, he was to overtake, it was his duty to see that road is clear. The scooter might have been at a high speed, while overtaking the tractor and it struck against the right side front wheel of tractor. So, no fault can be found with the observation made by learned Tribunal while fastening contributory negligence on the part of claimant/appellant. He was also supposed to be equally alert and diligent at the time of overtaking the tractor. The driver of the tractor also turned it abruptly without giving any signal.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a glance at the amount awarded by learned Tribunal transpires that though claimant/appellant could prove the bills only for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- approximately but taking a lenient view and considering the fact that it is not possible for the patient to retain all the bills/cash memos of medicines purchased for treatment; a sum of Rs. 20,900/- has been awarded. Similarly, on account of disability a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded; besides all other grounds totally a sum of Rs. 47,000/-. As such, compensation awarded by learned Tribunal in the given circumstances cannot be termed either unjust or inadequate. So, no interference of this Court is justified in the impugned award and findings recorded by learned Tribunal. As a result of aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed whereby the impugned award dated April 11, 2003 is upheld. No order as to costs.