(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Tribunal partially refusing his claim for Rs. 26,000/ -. While determining the compensation payable to be Rs. 4,000/ -, the Tribunal deducted three -fourths of the same towards contributory negligence and awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 1,000/ -with 3% interest and consolidated cost of Rs. 50/ -.
(2.) THE injuries on account of the accident by the truck are not in dispute. The hospitalisation of the claimant from 17.10.1977 to 11.11.1977 is also not in dispute. The Tribunal found that the claimant is not free from blame, since he was unmindful of the coming of the truck bearing registration No. ORU 5059. Since the claimant was coming from the lane to the main road, the Tribunal put blame on the claimant. The evidence of DW 1 discloses that he did not stop the vehicle and ran away. This important factor has not been considered by the Tribunal.
(3.) THE loss of one month's income of the claimant assessed at Rs. 500/ - is just. An absentee businessman always suffers from the business falling down for some time. Besides, the physical pain, mental agony and expenses incurred for the treatment in the hospital can legitimately be inferred. Compensation of Rs. 7,500/ - would be just in the circumstances of this case. Thus, the claimant is, entitled to Rs. 7,500/ - towards the compensation.