ANIL KUMAR Vs. DEVI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') against the judgment and award dtd. 4/1/2003 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 1552/1996, by which the claim petition filed by the claimant appellant has been partly allowed and an amount of Rs.1,91,300.00 has been awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

(2.) Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant appellant awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,91,300.00 under various heads in favour of the claimant appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant claimant submits that in the aforesaid accident, the appellant has sustained 76.67% permanent disability and the disability certificate (Ex. 13) has been issued in this regard by the competent authority. Counsel further submits that because of the aforesaid permanent disabilities, the appellant is not in a position to live his life and discharge his daily routine activities which he was discharging prior to the accident. Counsel submits that on account of the aforesaid injuries and permanent disability, the service of an attendant is required and not a single penny has been awarded under this head. Counsel further submits that Dr. M.K. Mathur (AW-5) appeared in the witness box and he stated that the appellant has sustained 76.67% permanent disability and due to the aforesaid disability, he has to remain dependent on others for discharging his daily routine activities. Counsel further submits that though the factum of accident was established on the record of the Tribunal but the Tribunal has treated the instant case as the case of contributory negligence only on the ground that on the day of accident the injured was sitting on the two-wheeler and in all three persons were sitting on the two-wheeler. The Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that there was 50% contributory negligence by saying that there was violation of traffic rules and as per the traffic Rules, three persons cannot sit on the two- wheeler. Counsel further submits that this cannot be a reason to hold that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant claimant because the claimant was not plying the vehicle. Counsel submits that it may be a case of composite negligence, so under these circumstances, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. In support of his contentions, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment decided by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Kastoori Devi and Shanti, reported in 1987 ACC 258 and recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 79/2020 decided on 8/1/2020). Counsel further submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award needs suitable enhancement by this Court.