S N PRAKASH Vs. RAJU SHANKARALAL GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsels on both sides. We have re-examined the record in the light of the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsels who represent the parties. As far as the Heads 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, despite a lot of persuasion from the appellant's learned Counsel we are not inclined to revise these heads because we uphold the submission canvassed by the respondent's learned Counsel that on the facts and circumstances on record and the material on record the Tribunal has been not only fair but liberal to the appellant under Heads 1, 2 and 4. As far as Head 3 is concerned, the only aspect that impressed us is the fact that the injury to the limb viz. , the leg was relatively serious and the medical evidence very clearly establishes that there was a disability to the extent of 38% to the limb which is considerable. We do concede that the respondent's learned Counsel was quick to point out to us that this has not in any way endangered the job of the appellant who was a government servant and he has also pointed out to us that it has not resulted in any reduction in salary or loss of earnings because the submission is that the figures have emerged in the course of the trial before the Tribunal, that the appellant continues to work and that he is drawing the normal salary which he would have otherwise received. Despite all this, we do take cognisance of one important fact viz. , that this disability is virtually lifelong and that with the onset of age as time goes on it would only increase, it would reduce the mobility and it would also have certain other fallout which the Tribunal has obviously not taken into account. Under these circumstances, the amount awarded under head 3 is increased by Rs. 40,000/ -.

(2.) THERE was a vehement submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the finding of contributory negligence must be set aside insofar as it was his case that it was the other vehicle which was responsible for the collision. The Tribunal has very carefully assessed the facts and the evidence on record and very rightly held that both the drivers or both the riders are equally responsible for what has happened. While confirming this finding we need to observe that it is equally important for the Court to take judicial note of certain facts and situations and that this Court cannot close its eyes to the absolutely reckless manner in which two-wheelers are operated on the roads without any care or consideration of safety either for oneself or for other road users, that the speed at which the two-wheelers are driven which is invariably excessive and which often resembles circus acrobats, and importantly the fact that these vehicles invariably breach every single one of the rules of the road and the traffic norms never observing the lane system, zigzagging like reptiles and often travelling on the wrong side of the road. Karnataka accounts for the highest number of two-wheeler accidents in the country with the police department unconcerned and the State Government encouraging youngsters to kill themselves by not wearing helmets. There is no country in the world where a two-wheeler rider is exempt from wearing a helmet. Having regard to these factors it would not be possible to disturb the finding of contributory negligence. The Traffic control Department of the Police being primarily responsible for this unpardonable state of affairs we direct a concerted drive for 3 months where every single offender is heavily fined will bring some sanity to the situation.

(3.) THE appellant's learned Counsel did very vehemently submit that since the evidence of the applicant was uncontroverted wherein he has made out a case that it was the other driver who shot out from the side road and collided against his left leg that the Court ought not to uphold the plea of contributory negligence since this evidence is uncontroverted. We do concede this position, but we cannot lose sight of the findings of the learned member of the Tribunal who states that the police after investigation had charge-sheeted both the drivers, that they were prosecuted and that they have been convicted by the Criminal Courts. Appellant's learned Counsel submits that these prosecutions are routine matters, that the appellant who is doing a responsible job could have had obvious difficulty of coping with a long-term contest and that obviously he had pleaded guilty from the practical point of view, that this factor should not be held against him. While there may be some justification in what the learned Counsel points out, the difficulty for us is that where a plea of guilt is recorded and a conviction results it would not be permissible for us to go behind that decision and this is the main reason why we have upheld the finding. At the same time, since we have adopted the sympathetic approach to the appellant we have been liberal while enhancing the compensation under Head 3 so that in the net result even if that figure is halved he would still be left with the enhancement which we feel is fair to him. This in our considered view is the highest that we can do in order to be just and fair to the appellant.