1. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183/2003, the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola awarded the compensation of Rs.64,000/with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 17/06/2003 till realization of the entire amount of compensation to the appellant. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded therein, appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the appeal are as follows :
Appellant
is the owner of Tractor bearing no. MH-30-E-7795.
On 06/03/2001 at about 2:30 p.m. appellant was driving his
Tractor on National Highway No.6 at Murtizapur. At that time one
Ambulance bearing no. MH-12-RA-02111
came from behind. It was
driven in rash and negligent manner and in high speed and gave
dash to the Tractor of the appellant. As a result, appellant sustained
severe injuries and became unconscious on the spot. He also
suffered extensive damage to the Tractor. Appellant was firstly
treated in Laxmi Deshmukh Government Hospital at Murtizapur
and then at District Government Hospital, Akola and thereafter at
Mankar Hospital, Akola for about one month as indoor patient.
Respondent no.1 was driving the said Ambulance at the time of
accident and it was owned by respondent nos.2 and 3 and insured
with respondent no.4. Appellant, therefore, filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against respondents,
claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/.
3. Respondent nos.1 to 3 denied their liability to
compensate the appellant by submitting that the cause of accident
was the rash and negligent driving of appellant as he was driving
his Tractor in high speed on the National Highway and he arrived
from the approach road without taking note of the vehicles passing
on said road. Hence, respondents are not liable to pay any amount
of compensation. In the alternate, it was submitted that the amount
of compensation claimed by the appellant is exorbitant. He has
hardly sustained any disability, much less permanent disability on
account of the injuries sustained in the accident. It was further
submitted that the claim made by appellant towards the
compensation for repairs of the Tractor and medical expenses,
therefore, being on higher side and not reasonable, his petition
needs to be dismissed.
4. On these rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration. In support of his claim, appellant examined himself and Dr. Ranjeet Patil, who has issued the disability certificate. He has also led the evidence of three more witnesses, by name, Gajanan, Mukund and Sanjay to prove the damages sustained to the Tractor and the repairs thereof. By way of documentary evidence, appellant produced the disability certificate, discharge card, medical bills and bills for purchasing the spare parts etc. On behalf of respondents, respondent no.1 entered into the witness box and denied his liability for the said accident.
5. On appreciation of this evidence on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that it was the case of contributory negligence, and hence, appellant equally being liable for the said accident, deducted 50% of the compensation amount and awarded the amount of Rs.64,000/only to the appellant.
6. While challenging this judgment of the Tribunal, submission of learned counsel for appellant is that in this case, the police have, after carrying out necessary enquiry, lodged complaint against the respondent no.1, the driver of Ambulance for the offence under Sections 279, 338, 427 of I.P.C., thereby holding that the cause of the accident was his rash and negligent driving. It is urged that the observations made by the Tribunal that accident has occurred due to the negligence of appellant, as he came on the Highway from the approach road, without taking note of the vehicles passing on the said road, are not correct as they are against the material evidence on record. Hence, according to learned counsel for appellant, there was absolutely no reason for the Tribunal to treat it as a case of contributory negligence and award only 50% of the compensation amount. Appellant, has therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/.
7. The first and foremost question, therefore, arising for consideration in the present appeal is, what was the cause of the accident, whether respondent no.1 was alone responsible for the same or the case of contributory negligence can be said to be made out? In this respect, the photographs of both the vehicles after the accident are produced on record at Exh.77 to Exh.83 and these photographs are self eloquent one to show that in the said accident both the vehicles had sustained the damage from front side. If the case of appellant that Ambulance driven by respondent no.1 was in high speed and it gave dash to his Tractor from behind, while he was proceeding on proper side of the road, is to be accepted, then there is no explanation as to how the damage was caused to the front portion of the Tractor. Therefore, it becomes necessary to accept the case of respondent no.1 that while Tractor was entering on the Highway from the approach road, appellant, the Tractor driver has not taken note of the passing vehicles and dashed against the Ambulance. The evidence of respondent no.1, the driver of Ambulance, clearly goes to show that as a result of this dash, his vehicle got entangled in Tractor and his legs were also fractured in the said accident. The admission given by the respondent no.1 in crossexamination that on account of the accident, Tractor broke into two pieces and the photographs are also sufficient to show that the impact was forceful and it was on account of the negligence and rash driving on the part of both the vehicles.
8. It may be true that Ambulance was in high speed, but that is because there was one serious patient in the said Ambulance at the time of accident, as deposed by respondent no.1, and therefore, though Ambulance driver is also responsible for the said accident, the liability on the part of Tractor driver also cannot be ignored. If he had entered on the Highway after taking note of the passing vehicles, then this accident would not have occurred. The finding, therefore, arrived at by the Tribunal that for this accident both the vehicle drivers were responsible, and therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence of 50 : 50 proportion, cannot be said to be against the evidence on record. On the contrary, on reappreciation of the evidence, this court also found that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible equally for the accident that has taken place. In such situation, the Tribunal has rightly held appellant entitled only for 50% of the compensation amount, arrived at by it as just and fair compensation.
9. In respect of the quantum of compensation also the perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has considered the disability certificate (Exh.67) which was only to the extent of 4% of the lumber region and that was also only in respect of the refraction of moments of lumbar spine. The Tribunal has also considered the medical bills which were produced on record along with the bills of repairs of the Tractor and then came to conclusion that the total amount of compensation to which appellant entitled can be Rs.1,28,000/, however having regard to the fact that appellant is also held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.64,000/to the appellant with interest thereon.
10. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, this court does not find any reason to interfere in the said judgment and finding of the Tribunal.
11. Appeal, therefore, holds no merits. Hence, stands dismissed.
