RAMU KALLAPPA KIWADA Vs. U RAMADAS NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimant-appellant, from the judgment and award dated 11-9-1991 and the grievance of the appellant is that the compensation awarded to him is unjust and too meagre and insufficient.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that, on 23-12-1988 injuries were caused to the claimant-appellant in the accident, that according to the claimant-appellant, occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. Meg 7669 driven by the respondent 1 and belonging to the respondent 2 and insured by the respondent 3. The accident occured on , 23-12-1988 at 17-30 hours (5. 30 p. m.) at poona-Bangalore road near hitni cross in village kanagala. The claimant's case has been that, as a result of the occurrence, the claimant suffered injuries including fractures of collar bone and right leg as well as resulting in amputation of his left leg from knee. The claimant's case has been that on account of these injuries the claimant has been permanently disable. In the claim petition it was averred that the age of the claimant at the time of the occurrence was 30 years and immediately earlier to the occurrence or incident the claimant was healthy and used to work as a coolie worker and was earning Rs. 30/- to Rs. 40/- per day. But, on account of the injuries and amputation of his left leg, he has become permanently disabled to do any work and his future life has become miserable and the life of members of his family has also become miserable. So the claimant claim compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/ -. On notice being issued, the objections were filed by the respondent 3 i. e. , the insurance company and the respondents 1 and 2 have adopted the objections of the respondent 3. The respondent 3 in his reply took a plea that there has been contributory negligence on the part of the claimant as he was careless and negligent while carrying the fodder on his head. A further plea that was taken is to the effect that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant. In the additional objections, the respondent 3 i. e. , the insurance company contended that the liability, if any, under the policy is to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and if the tribunal comes to the conclusion that this respondent is liable to pay any amount of compensation, the maximum liability of respondent 3 is up to Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The tribunal framed the following three issues:

(3.) WHAT order?3. In support of his claim, the petitioner filed the evidence and examined himself in evidence. Ex. P-1 to p-17 are the documentary evidence furnished on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence has been adduced. It is only the insurance policy that has been filed and has been marked as ex. D-1 by the consent of the parties.