P.V. SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. N. SANAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the owner of the vehicle in both the cases. In O.P. (MV.) No. 500 of 1980 Rs. 70,100/- was awarded as compensation whereas in O.P. 501 of 1980 Rs. 14,000/- was awarded.

(2.) CONTENTION of the appellant is that there is no material or cogent reason to hold that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent and that the Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent in both the cases were really rash and negligent and contributed to the incident. The quantum of compensation awarded is also challenged by the appellant. Cross objections were filed by the first respondent in both the cases (claimants) on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and warrants interference by this Court.

(3.) IN O.P. 501 of 1980 the award passed was for an amount of Rs. 14,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 25-6-1980 till realisation. Petitioner in O.P. 501 of 1980 is employed as an Agricultural Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank. He admitted that on account of the accident he did not lose any part of his earning power. So the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of Rs. 20,000/- made for loss of earning power cannot be allowed. It is his evidence that he sustained fracture of right femur. 10% disability has been assessed by the Medical Board as per Ext. A-9. The petitioner examined as P.W.2 deposed that he can drive motor cycle though there is some difficulty- Taking into account the permanent partial disability of 10% the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation. Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering. Transport charge was awarded at Rs. 750/-. Expenses for medicines and by standers were determined at Rs. 1,250/-. Thus in all Rs. 14,000/- was awarded as compensation. Considering the nature of the injuries and Ext. A-9 it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in quantifying the total compensation as Rs. 14,000/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said award. The cross objection do not merit consideration.