GUNNER DRIVER M. VENKATAPPA REDDY Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for the amputation of a leg suffered by the driver in the Army. He was 21 years of age at the time of the accident and said to be earning Rs. 900/-. The accident had taken place on 30.1.1987 and he had fairly long spell of hospitalization. Since he was in the Army, his medical expenses were taken care of and the Tribunal while assessing the compensation provided for Rs.1,10,000/- that included Rs. 20,000/- as loss of earning capacity.

(2.) The issue of negligence was held in favour of the claimant and found against the driver of the State Police on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimant himself and a person who was a pillion rider. According to them, the accident took place when the claimant was proceeding on the left side of the road and the Police jeep coming from the opposite direction was attempting to overtake a cycle and dashed against the motorcycle on the left side of the road and the right leg of the appellant was crushed and later amputated. The driver denied the accident itself in his written statement, but the State did not come as far as that in its reply and admitted that there was an accident but would state that both of them were responsible for the accident.

(3.) The appeal by the State is in FAO No.187 of 1989 and the appeal by the claimant for enhancement is FAO No.221 of 1989. Learned counsel appearing for the State would point out to the fact that the claimant had admitted before the Police subsequent to the accident that no fault could be attributed to the driver of the jeep and that there was no need to prosecute the criminal case. Accordingly, it appears that FIR had been cancelled. The claimant, however, resiled from his concession and had given evidence at the trial against the driver of the State Police vehicle. I will not find this alleged statement of the claimant before the Police that no one was responsible for the accident as impeding the Tribunal from making an assessment that it was only the Police vehicle that was responsible for the accident. The cancellation of FIR itself could be easily visualized as one that was secured by the Police by the fact that the accused was a member of the Police force and a cancellation to their own benefit ought not to be taken very serious note of, to the detriment of the claim. I will uphold the finding of the Tribunal that there was a negligence on part of the State. Indeed, the denial of accident by the driver was deplorable and the admission which the State was relying on for cancellation of the FIR itself proves that the driver's evidence and statement were false to his knowledge. I will not, therefore, accord to the State any width to hold that the driver was not responsible for the accident.