BHAGIRATHI Vs. SHARATH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel who represents the owner. Unfortunately, the Insurance Company though served, did not appear either before the Tribunal and has not appeared before this court either.

(2.) THE appellants learned Counsel points out to us that there are several errors in the orders passed by the Tribunal because having resolved the legal position and recorded the finding that the compensation would be payable, even if the global compensation would be payable, even if the global compensation formula were to be accepted, that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 50,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/- because the amendment to the Act has come in the year 1989 itself. We find that apparently the learned Judge proceeded on the footing that the incident has taken place prior to the amendment and that would not be the correct position in law. Under the amended formula, the appellant would have been entitled to a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- plus interest but, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in having ignored the remaining material on record. We need to also observe that if in a given instance, even if there is relatively limited evidence and that evidence can result in a higher compensation than the global compensation, that it is the duty of the court to take cognizance of that evidence, in order to ensure that the aggrieved party benefits. That precisely is the formula which we propose to adopt.

(3.) IN this case, the evidence of PW-2 is more than sufficient to establish the negligence aspect and consequently, the liability on the Insurance Company is absolute. There is no doubt about the fact that the vehicle was insured and consequently, the compensation amount will have to be paid by the Insurance Company.