JOHN FERNANDES Vs. SANJEEV LOLIENCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. By this appeal, the challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 5 th November, 2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") filed by the appellant. A claim of Rs.5,00,000/- was made by the appellant towards the compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted a compensation of Rs.3,45,023/- with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of claim petition until payment. The Tribunal did not grant interest on the amount of Rs.1,15,500/- representing the future loss of income.

(2.) The case made out by the appellant in the claim petition is that on 21st March, 1995 at about 7 p.m., he was riding a scooter. The accident occurred when the appellant was travelling towards Margao. At that time, a tipper owned by the first respondent, which was insured with the third respondent, came from opposite side and gave a dash to the scooter. As a result of the impact, the appellant fell down. The allegation is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tipper. The appellant suffered head injury, fracture of 5 ribs and fracture of both the bones of the right forearm. As a result of the injuries sustained, the appellant developed gangrene of the right forearm, which necessitated amputation of his right upper limb, above the elbow.

(3.) The claim petition was contested by the third respondent (insurer of the tipper). The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper by the driver. The Tribunal accepted the case made out by the appellant that as a result of the accident he sustained fracture of 5 ribs, a head injury, fracture in right forearm and ultimately his forearm was required to be amputed above the elbow. A contention was raised by the third respondent that there was negligence on the part of the person plying the scooter at the relevant time. The Tribunal negatived the said contention.