JAGDISH PRASAD VERMA Vs. P.P. MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. By the instant appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act, 1988"), the appellants/claimant seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 63/2003 by the award dated 25 -10 -2004, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 32,500/ - in favour of the appellant/claimant. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/ - for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident which had taken place on 8 -2 -1998, at about 4:30 P.M. The appellant/claimant was going on diesel motorcycle Bullet bearing registration No. MP 23 K 0238 along with cousin brother Sadhuram Verma (AW -2) to attend his duty. When they reached near BSP Higher Secondary School No. 2, Sector 6, Bhilai, Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP 24 W 2428, driven by respondent No. 2, rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle. The appellant/claimant sustained multiple injuries in the accident. Crime No. 75/1998 was registered in Police Station, Bhilainagar. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are owner of the Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP 24 W 2428.

(2.) THE learned Claims Tribunal, after hearing all the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, computed a sum of Rs. 65,000/ - as compensation in favour of the appellant/claimant. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the appellant/claimant was liable to pay contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal deducted the amount to the extent of 50% from the amount of compensation towards contributory negligence. Hence, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 32,500/ - to the appellant/claimant by fastening the liability on the respondents. The learned Claims Tribunal also awarded interest @ 8% per annum.

(3.) SHRI Amar Kesharwani, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Shri Utkal Pradhan, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3, supporting the impugned award, submitted that it does not call for any interference by this court. They further argued that the appellant has not raised the ground of the contributory negligence in his memo of appeal.