SHANKAR APPAYYA GOVAKAR Vs. NURUDAPPA BASAPPA MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS claimant's appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 19-10-1991, delivered in the motor accidents claim No. 14 motor vehicle case No. 1416 of 1988, whereby the tribunal No. Iii, belgaum has granted and awarded, in total a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as global compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and directed that the respondents 1 to 3, shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded and it further directed that as regards remaining 50% of the amount of compensation awarded shall be payable jointly and severally" by respondents 4 and 5 to the claim petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on the date of occurrence, that is 11-12-1988, the claimant-appellant was a pillion rider on scooter bajaj-ctl 2626, from belgaum market to kanabargi which was being run in a moderate speed. When the scooter reached the spot of accident at about 9. 45 p. m. , the k. s. r. t. c. bus-mef 3510, came from the opposite direction in a great speed and dashed against the scooter belonging to respondent 4, in the claim petition, that is the claimant in motor vehicle case No. 473 of 1989. As an impact of the dashing of the bus with the scooter, claimant-petitioner, who was pillion rider and respondent 4, who was the rider, i. e. , driver of the scooter sustained serious and grevious injuries and they had to be shifted to the hospital. The case of the claimants, in the two claim petitions had been that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent 1, that is the driver of the k. s. r. t. c. bus. The claimant further averred that the claimant was, at the time of accident, was healthy, fit and carrying on the business of vegetable vending and his monthly income was about Rs. 2,000/ -. The claimant in the claim petition averred that as a result of the accident, he suffered compound fracture of right leg below knee and grevious injuries on other parts of the body. The claimant further alleged that from the date of accident, i. e. , 11-12-1988, till the date of filing of the petition, the claimant was under the medical treatment in the hospital. The claimant has mentioned that before the accident, he was hale and healthy and doing vending business for earning livelihood for his family, and has been the sole bread earner. That he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-, as compensation under different heads which are mentioned hereinafter;

(3.) THE claim of the claimant was contested by the opposite parties, who filed their written statement. Respondents 1 to 3, filed the objection as well as respondent 5, did file objections, but no written statement has been filed in motor vehicle case No. 1416 of 1988 i. e. , in the claim petition of appellant by respondent 4 and respondent 4, allowed the proceedings of that case to go without contest. It may be mentioned here that this respondent 4, had himself filed a claim petition claiming damages and compensation against the k. s. r. t. c. , only. The respondents 2 and 3, who filed the objections denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It was asserted by respondents 2 and 3, that the bus was being driven by respondent 1, in a moderate speed and when the bus reached c. b. t. stand, respondent 1, saw one city bus was taking the turn towards platform and slowed down the same as well as stopped the same to allow the other bus to pass and at that point of time, one vehicle bajaj m. 80 scooter with a pillion rider as well came from the other side, the rider was under the influence of liquor and alcohol, he was running with great speed and dashed against the stationary bus resulting in injuries to the rider and the pillion rider, to the scooter and from there the pillion rider and the scooter were removed to the hospital. That they being under the effect of alcohol or liquor were not able to control the vehicle and so, the occurrence did take place, respondents 2 and 3 denied their liability for the accident and asserted that there was no negligence or rash driving on the part of the respondent 1, in driving the k. s. r. t. c. bus. They asserted that claimant was not entitled to any compensation. In the alternative, they also took the plea that claim made by the claimant was exorbitant.