M. JAYA KUMAR Vs. PALLAVAN TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is confined to the question of the quantum of compensation to be awarded. It is submitted that the compensation of Rs. 32,000/-, though claimed, was limited to only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that there has been shortening of the right leg of the victim-appeilant by one inch and there is also a permanent disability, caused, so far as the right thigh-bone is concerned. It is further submitted that the driver of the car, namely the injured victim, having lost the capacity of using his leg, has been found to a certain extent incapable of driving because it is only by the use of the legs he can propel the mechanism in a car by application of the brakes as well as accelerating it or applying the clutches. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the argument on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. N.E. Arumugam, is wtithout substance. On the other hand, this Court finds that the Tribunal has given very niggardly sums under the various heads claimed as compensation.

(2.) SO far as the question of rashness and negligence of the driver of the respondent's bus is concerned, it was the driver of the respondent's bus who has been responsible for the occurrence in this case. Though the driver of the bus was acquitted in the criminal case, yet it is not a ground that there had been no negligence on his part. On the other hand, on a careful anxious scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court finds that it was only due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the respondent's bus that the occurrence had taken place and therefore, this Court confirms the finding of the Tribunal in this case, because it does not want to embark upon a repetition of the very same reasons offered by the Tribunal for arriving at such a finding. As a matter of fact, the appellant is only concerned with the enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) THE Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence with reference to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's bus by its driver and bas come to the correct conclusion that it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus that the occurrence had taken place. The present claim is that the driver of the car, namely P.W. 4, the injured in the case, was involved in the accident and had sustained injuries. The evidence of the medical officers who attended on him is that he had sustained fracture of the right femur and there was an operation made on him for the purpose of inserting a pin and another one for the removal of the pin later and due to this process of pin traction, he has sustained shortening of the right leg by one inch. He was an in-patient in the hospital from 15-9-1977 to 25-11 1977 and this is shown by the case sheet maintained in the hospital (Exhibit P. 2). Further he had sustained injuries on his forehead, upper arm and other parts of the body. According to P.W. 5, the doctor, P.W. 4 was able to walk only with support at the time of discharge from the hospital and it would have taken him one or two montht to be normal after discharge, and during that period he could not have worked and must have suffered pain till he was completely cured According to him, pin-traction is a painful process. Even on the date of his evidence, P.W 6 the doctor, examined P.W. 4 in court and stated that he had a limp and could not walk fast or run. Therefore, the appellant was an in-patient for 2 months and 10 days and has incured the above permanent disability. It is seen that even on the date of enquiry before the Tribunal, i.e. even after two years after the accident, he had not been completely cured and had been found to be limping.