MANIKANDAN Vs. K M ABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Petition to condone the delay of 797 days. We take a lenient view. Petition is allowed. Delay is condoned. There shall be a rider that interest shall not be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation if any awarded for the said period of 797 days. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 29.10.1997. The appellant was riding a motor cycle. The offending vehicle was proceeding in front. It is the case of the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly without giving any indication turned suddenly to the right. The appellant attempted to avoid the accident but his vehicle hit against the right side (near cabin door) of the other vehicle. He suffered injuries. He was an inpatient for a total period of 7 days. He underwent treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He continued treatment as an out patient. According to him, he was a service technician getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. He had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 8%. He claimed a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal by the impugned award came to the conclusion that the driver of the tempo van as well as the rider of the motorcycle were both responsible for the accident. The appellant was responsible to the extent of 35% and the other driver was liable to the extent of 65%, it was held. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the total loss suffered by the appellant was Rs.50,000/- and that the appellant is entitled to recover 65% of such amount as compensation from the insurer of the other vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.32,500/- along with interest.

(2.) THE appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on two specific grounds. First of all, it is contended that the finding that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence is absolutely incorrect. Secondly, it is contended that the quantum of compensation fixed is not just and reasonable.

(3.) THE court below looked into the documents revealing the nature of damage suffered by the tempo van as also the scene of occurrence as located in the scene mahazar. THEre was an impact between the two vehicles near the right cabin door of the tempo van. THE road lies east-west and the accident had taken on the northern half of the road close to the northern kerb. THEse indications were reckoned by the Tribunal as suggestive of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.