P PRASANTH Vs. PATHARAMBAL RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the award of the M. A. C. T. , thalassery in O. P. (M. V ). No. 1251/1990. The short issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is as to whether the Tribunal has erred in law in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the claimant on the ground that he was found to have been standing on the foot board of the stage carrier in which he was travelling. Having perused the grounds award, I do not find that any other ground could have been raised as regards the quantum of compensation. On the question raised, the law laid in the decision of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Ravindran (1990 (1) KLT 607), applies. What arises for consideration is as to how the ratio of decision in Bhaskaran's case applies to this case. The claim petition from which this appeal arises was disposed of jointly with O. P. (M. V) No. 1029/1990 filed by the cleaner, who gave evidence. There was no other witness from the side of the driver or from the owner of the stage carrier. The petitioner in O. P. (M. V) No. 1029/1990 is admittedly an employee of the bus. He works as cleaner in the bus. His evidence is to the effect that he was travelling on the foot board and was thrown out. He has not stated that he instructed the appellant not to travel on the foot board. It is the case of the appellant that he was not on the foot board but on the platform of the bus. There is no other evidence to suggest that the petitioner was instructed not to travel, standing on the foot board. Under such circumstances, no negligence could have been attributed to the claimant in O. P. (M. V ). No. 1251/1991. For the forgoing reasons, award in O. P. (M. V) 1251/90 is modified and it is directed that the appellant will be entitled to the total compensation as found by the Tribunal, with all incidentals thereon, without slashing any amount. The appellant will be entitled to only 8% interest on half of the amount. The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.