POLLE SRINIVASA RAO Vs. I C H VENKATARAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Theappellanthavinggotinjured and lost his right hand in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22-11-1988 at about 10 a.m. while he was travelling in a Tourist Bus AHF 5115 as a passenger stretching his right hand out side the bus sleeping, laid a claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') in O.P. 12/89 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole as against Respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle and Respondent No.2. Insurer, which was resisted by the Respondent No.2 while Respondent No. 1 remaining exparte and the tribunal having inquired into the matter held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its Driver inasmuch as by the Driver of a lorry and as a whole due to the composite negligence and further held that the claimant himself was negligent to the extent of 20% since he has stretched the hand out side the bus which resulted in the accidentand lossof hand and assessed the compensation at Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical treatment and extra nourishment, Rs.14,000/- towards permanent disability and out of the total amount of Rs.24,000/- so arrived at deducted 50% by apportionment in regard to the bus involved in the accident and further reduced it by 40% and thus fixed Rs.9,600/- by way of compensation, and simple interest at 12% mulcting both the respondents in liability jointly and severally. It is this award which the appellant-claimant has challenged. The Respondent No.1 remained ex pane both before the Tribunal and this Court.

(2.) Mr. AnjiReddy, learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the finding of the composite negligence on the part of the two vehicles and the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant himself is incorrect on facts and secondly opposed to the settled law, that the apportionment of liability as between the two vehicles in a case of composite negligence to reduce it by 50% as against the bus involved in the accident and fixing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is also improper, that the items of compensation awarded and that the quantum in award are opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for RespondentNo.2 has contended that with the materials before the Tribunal no other decision could have been reached and the compensation awarded is quite adequate and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the award.