SIVAPRASAD Vs. C.T. SHINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant is the appellant. He has filed the appeal seeking enhanced compensation, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Accident arose when a bike ridden by the appellant collided with an autorickshaw driven by the second respondent and owned by first respondent. Admittedly, the autorickshaw at the time of accident had no valid policy coverage and third respondent, insurer of that vehicle, was found not liable to pay compensation. Ext. A3 police charge sheet imputed the second respondent, driver of autorickshaw, culpable for the occurrence. However, tribunal on the materials found that the claimant/appellant, rider of motor bike and also second respondent, driver of autorickshaw, both of them were equally culpable for the accident. On the materials placed, claimant was found entitled to get compensation of Rs. 19,184/- for injuries sustained to him in the occurrence. However, taking into consideration his culpability, to the extent of 50% in causing the occurrence, the tribunal held that he is entitled to get only one half of the compensation found payable for the loss and injuries suffered by him. In that view of the matter an award was passed granting him compensation of Rs. 9,592/- allowing him to realise that sum with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition with proportionate costs from the first respondent, owner of the autorickshaw. Quantum of compensation awarded limiting it to 50% of the total amount found payable imputing contributory negligence against him for the occurrence, to the extent of 50%, is challenged in this appeal by the claimant. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant relying on Ext. A3 charge sheet contended that the tribunal had gone wrong in holding that the claimant had equally contributed for the occurrence. Reducing of the compensation found payable limiting it one half of the quantum arrived at, holding that claimant also contributed equally for the accident in the facts of the case, was patently erroneous, is the further submission of counsel. No evidence was produced by claimant other than Ext. A3 police charge sheet and also the treatment records with copy of his driving licence, to substantiate his claim of compensation. Ext. A3 charge sheet filed by police in the crime registered over the occurrence should have been accepted by tribunal in toto, is the challenge raised to question the finding made by tribunal that claimant was also equally culpable for the occurrence. No doubt, charge sheet filed by police after investigation of the crime over the accident has got much value in considering the question of negligence imputed against driver of the offending vehicle. However, it cannot be stated that the tribunal cannot form its own conclusion with reference to the materials produced at whose fault the accident took place. The facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence involving the present case disclose that while claimant/appellant tried to overtake the autorickshaw with his bike, the accident took place. In such a case in the absence of better evidence from the claimant that he was blameworthy for the occurrence involving collision of two vehicles finding entered by the tribunal that he too had contributed to the extent of 50% for the occurrence cannot be found fault with. Tribunal after examining Ext. A3 charge sheet has come to that conclusion after appreciating the circumstances surrounding the accident I do not find any merit in the challenge raised by appellant questioning the finding made by tribunal that claimant too had contributed for the occurrence to the extent of 50%. However, it is seen the tribunal has overlooked the propriety and legality over the awarding of compensation when both parties, claimant and also the driver of autorickshaw, were found equally culpable for the occurrence. In the present appeal where no cross objections are filed by the second respondent/insurer questing the quantum of compensation awarded to claimant raising such a challenge I find that question need not be gone into. No challenge other than questioning the contributory negligence imputed against the claimant was canvassed in the appeal to assail the award passed by tribunal I have already found that the challenges thereof is not sustainable.