LAWS(KAR)-1980-2-24

G R SHETTY Vs. UNNIKRISHNA NAIR

Decided On February 29, 1980
G.R.SHETTY Appellant
V/S
UNNIKRISHNA NAIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. MYE 3251 is directed against the judgment and award dated 19-4-1977 passed by the claims Tribunal, N. Kanara, Karwar in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973 on its file awarding compensation of Rs. 22,000 to the claimant fixing the liability at the rate of 30% and 70 per cent between the bus and the lorry.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that on the night o 3/4-5-1973, he was travelling in the bus bearing No. MYX 6927 of the first respondent from Mudbidre to Hubli. The bus was being driven, by the second respondent - driver. At about 12-15 am on 4-5.1973 near Karki, on the National Highway, the lorry bearing No. MYE 3251 which was coming from the opposite direction belonging to the 4th respondent which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 5th respondent brushed by the side of the bus, as a result of which the claimant was severely hurt on his elbow which got fractured Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,53,000. At the time of the accident he was aged about 21 years and was studying in the 3rd year B.E. class of the Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Surathkal and that as a result of the injuries sustained by him, his right hand became practically incapacitated. He is not in a position to bend his right hand properly. As the result of the incapacity, he is not in a position to realise his aspiration to take Post-Graduate Degree in Mechanical Engineering and, thus secure a lucrative job fetching Rs. 1000 per month to start with.

(3.) Out of the compensation claimed, Rs. 10,000 are claimed as compensation on account of his inability to participate in games, sports and for loss of amenities. He has claimed Rs.. 5000 towards pain and suffering. The claim was resisted by the respondents denying that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus or lorry. Alternatively they contended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. The owner and driver of the bus asserted that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry whereas, the owner and driver of the lorry asserted that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus. From these pleadings, the following issues were raised by the Tribunal.