SAJU K T Vs. VINOD M , SREENIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An electrician working in the Naval Base who sustained injuries, the details of which are given in paragraph 7 of the award passed by the Tribunal complains that the learned Tribunal did not award him proper compensation. There is a further complaint regarding the finding of the Tribunal that there is contributory negligence to the extent of 50% from the part of the appellant. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K. Janardhanan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Mathews Jacob, senior counsel for the Insurance Company. We have carefully gone through the impugned award. Mr. Janardhanan would draw our attention to Ext.A3 scene mahazar and submit that the scene mahazar does not disclose the spot of the accident. The scene mahazar was prepared two days after the accident and the exact spot of the accident was slightly to the western side of the middle of the road. The accident happened because the appellant was trying to overtake an autorickshaw. The appellant had taken all the precautions and at any rate, the percentage of 50% fixed by the Tribunal as contribution on the side of the appellant in the matter of negligence is wrong. Sri. Mathews Jacob, senior counsel per contra submitted that A3 scene mahazar was produced by none other than the appellant himself. It is based on A3 that the learned Tribunal entered the finding that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. In this connection Mr. Janardhanan submitted that the charge sheet shows that the entire negligence was on the part of the driver of the car. There was no negligence at all on the part of the appellant. Mr. Janardhanan would submit that at any rate the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation. The senior Counsel Sri. Mathew Jacob would submit that the compensation awarded is reasonable.

(2.) Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having very carefully gone through the impugned award, we are of the view that the version of Mr. K. Janardhanan regarding the actual spot of the accident is more probable than what is disclosed by A3. At any rate, we are also of the view that there was some contribution in the negligence on the part of the appellant. We fix the contribution from the part of the appellant in the negligence at 25%. To that extent we modify the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the contributory negligence. Now we shall come to the correct compensation to be awarded to the appellant. Having considered the gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant we are of the view that the amount presently awarded towards pain and suffering is not adequate. We award to the appellant a sum of 5000/- more towards compensation for pain and suffering. It is only 8000/- which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards compensation for loss of amenities. We find some inadequacy in that also and we award to the appellant 2000/- more towards loss of amenities. We find that the learned Tribunal after having found that the appellant is entitled for loss of earnings for 40 days and having quantified the same at 6800/-, has deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the appellant. This was not proper. Therefore the appellant becomes entitled to 2270/- more and we award that amount. This is a case where no compensation has been given to the appellant for disability for the obvious reason that the appellant did not adduce any evidence regarding any permanent disability suffered by him. But having considered injuries suffered by the appellant we are of the view that the appellant will be suffering continuing discomfort on account of the injuries. We award to the appellant a sum of 8000/- for the above continuing discomfort. When the additional amounts awarded by us is taken into account, the total compensation payable becomes 56,300/-. As we have found percentage of contributory negligence is only 25% the appellant becomes eligible for total amount of 42,225/-. This means that over and above the sum of 19,015/- presently awarded the appellant becomes eligible for a further amount of 23210/-. We award the above amount to him. This amount will carry at the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal.