MAHESH Vs. A.SABRIK KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 5th May, 2008 passed by M.A.C.T., Dewas in Claim Case No. 32/08 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,90,239/- was assessed as compensation out of which 40% was deducted on account of contributory negligence and a sum of Rs. 1,14,200/- was awarded, the present appeal has been filed.Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 12th December, 2006 appellant was going in a tractor attached with the trolley loaded with Soyabean. It was alleged that said tractor trolley met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. KA04D 7977 which was being driven rashly and negligent by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, with the result appellant sustained 7 fractures. Appellant was hospitalised where appellant was operated 5 times. It was alleged that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of offending truck, therefore, claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and it was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and assessed the compensation as Rs. 1,90,239/- but deducted 40% of the amount awarded on the ground that appellant himself was negligent as he was sitting on the stock of Soyabean which was being carried by the offending tractor, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for appellant submits that learned Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs. 1,90,239/-. It is submitted that deduction of 40% amount on account of contributory negligence is against the record as there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that appellant was negligent. It is submitted that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 the accident occurred. Learned Counsel further submits that appellant sustained 7 fractures. His intestines were ruptured. Appellant was operated 4 times and total period for which appellant was hospitalised was 38 days. It is submitted that in number of heads no amount has been awarded and in number of heads the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. It is prayed that appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced and findings regarding contributory negligence be set aside.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that amount awarded is just and proper. It is submitted that no permanent disability has caused to the appellant and appellant is equally liable for the accident.