K NIRMALA Vs. C MURALEEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant sustained fracture of left side frontal bone, superior and medial orbital wall and fracture of right fore arm (colles) in an accident while she was travelling in a private bus which collided with a KSRTC bus. The appellant impleaded the KSRTC alone and not the private bus in which she was travelling. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence as to, on whose negligence the accident occurred. It was also found that the appellant had merely deposed that it is due to the fault of the driver, without specifying the vehicle whose driver was responsible for the accident.

(2.) The first contention taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the negligence found on the driver of the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling at 50% cannot be sustained. It is pointed out that the appellant had produced the FIR, in which the KSRTC bus driver was made the accused and hence there is a reasonable presumption as to the negligence being on the part of the said vehicle. The Insurance Company has not adduced any contra evidence, nor has the FIR been challenged. Ir is also seen that the appellant has produced two documents, which again indicate that the negligence was on the part of the KSRTC driver. Annexure A produced along with I.A No.3059/2011 is an award passed in another claim petition by an injured in the very same accident, wherein the Tribunal had found negligence on the KSRTC bus driver. Further Annexure B is the final report produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate's Court which indicates that the charge was laid against the driver of the KSRTC bus. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason for the negligence found on the driver of the other vehicle. The findings to that extend are set aside.

(3.) The further contention is with respect to the compensation awarded. The petitioner was awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings which this Court does not find any reason to interfere with. As bye stander expenses, the appellant was found entitled to Rs.800/- which is very low considering the fact that the appellant was hospitalised for eight days as has been proved by documents. The compensation for bye-stander expenses shall be increased to Rs.4,000/-. Admittedly, the appellant did not produce any medical bills, which the learned Counsel submits, taking into account the status of the injured, who was only a coolie worker, was lost from her hands. It is seen that the appellant had suffered a fracture on her left hand and also suffered an injury to the skull which as per her deposition has resulted in her loosing the sense of smell, for which however, there is no supporting evidence adduced. In any event, considering the injuries, it is only appropriate that the medical expenses be granted at Rs.5,000/-. The travelling expenses would also be enhanced to Rs.1,000/-. There can be no interference caused to the compensation awarded for damage to clothing.