BABY CHACKO, Vs. JOSE M.CHERIYAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the driver of an autorickshaw, which was involved in an accident, on collision with a bus coming from the opposite direction. The appellant-claimant was the driver of the autorickshaw which was carrying five passengers. A total of nine people filed claims petitions, including the appellant who was the driver of the autorickshaw. The driver of the autorickshaw, passengers in the autorickshaw and two passengers in the bus filed claim petitions, which led to a common award being passed. Only with respect to the appellant's claim there was an apportionment of compensation at 20% and 50% as against the autorickshaw driver and the bus driver. The appeal is filed against such apportionment of compensation as also claiming enhancement of the award amount.

(2.) The appellant claims that the apportionment is without reason, especially when the Tribunal having found the bus driver to have been negligent. The Insurance Company, however, claims that the scene mahazar, as perused by the Tribunal, would clearly indicate the negligence of the autorickshaw driver which is accentuated by the fact that the autorickshaw was overloaded with five passengers when the permission was to carry only four.

(3.) The Tribunal had framed issue No.1 on the question of negligence. It was also noticed that the autorickshaw carried five persons and there was a contention raised that due to overload the autorickshaw lost control. Having perused the scene mahazar and the First Information Report which was against the bus driver, the Tribunal found that the documents produced are sufficient to prove that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. However later when the compensation for the appellant was considered, the Tribunal found that the appellant, who was autorickshaw driver, was negligent insofar as having carried passengers over the permitted limit and, hence, apportionment was made of the liability at 20% on the autorickshaw driver. It is to be noticed specifically that no such apportionment has been made insofar as the liability with respect to the other parties who were also occupants of the vehicles which were involved in the accident.