RAFEEQUE Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.12.2008 in O. P. (M. V)No. 215 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The appellant was the petitioner therein. He filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal, as per the impugned award, assessed an amount of Rs. 1,88,610/- as compensation and based on its finding that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence and the consequential apportionment of the degree of negligence as 50%, deducted 50% of the compensation. In short, only an amount of Rs. 94,305/-, being 50% of the amount assessed, was awarded as per the impugned award, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. It is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and seeking for its enhancement that the captioned appeal has been preferred. The petitioner also raises grievances against the finding of the Tribunal that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) There is no dispute regarding the accident. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal considered the evidence before it for the purpose of deciding the question who was negligent, in other words, who was responsible for the accident ? The evidence of the appellant before the Tribunal consists of oral evidence of the appellant as PW1 and documentary evidence in Exts. A1 to A10. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on the side of the respondents. A scanning of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence owing to his failure to produce the charge sheet laid by the police after conducting investigation in the crime registered in connection with the accident in question. A perusal of the impugned judgment would also reveal that no other reason has been assigned by the Tribunal.