- (1.) WE have heard the appellant's learned advocate as also the learned advocate for the respondent. The principal submission canvassed before us is the fact that as per the appellant's case, the bus has caused multiple fractures to the legs, in addition 4 ribs were also fractured and, it resulted in the appellant having undergone 5 surgeries in the course of the illness. He has spent 105 days in the hospital. Though 10 years have lapsed since the date of the incident we are informed by the appellant's learned advocate that the appellant still requires treatment as some of the wounds have not been healed even at this point of time. The appellant's learned advocate has submitted before us that the tribunal has granted a very meagre compensation where he is undoubtedly right. He also points out to us for a variety of reasons, the requisite evidence could not be led before the Tribunal and he submits that consequently, the appellant's case has gone by default and that the interest of justice would justify a remand. We have ourselves not agreed to this request for a variety of reasons, the first of them being that we have consistently come across a very cavalier manner of conducting cases before the m. A. C. T. which is nothing short of professional negligence and despite this court having even passed strictures in several of the instances, there appears to be no level of improvement whatsoever. It is deplorable that this very low level of professionalism is being displayed while handling cases of a person whose life has been lost or has been severely affected and this court needs to observe, that where the lawyers ultimately extract a sizeable part of the compensation the least that is expected is that while conducting this class of cases they act more responsibly in future. The main reason why we are not inclined to order a remand is that the incident had taken place more than 10 years back and even assuming that the records can be dug up from somewhere, which is a remote possibility, the fact of the matter remains that evidence with regard to the real level of disability, etc. , which could have only come from the medical opinions/evidence which will not be forthcoming at this stage. Even if it is presumed that after stringent efforts some more evidence were to be secured, the value of the same would be extremely low. Under these circumstances, this court is left with no option except to consider as to what best can be done in the present case.
(2.) ON the question how the injury took place, the appellant's learned advocate has submitted that the charge of contributory negligence is groundless because it is based only on the statement made by the appellant in the F. I. R. which was retracted by him later. The submission is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case if it was the contention of the respondent that the appellant was a contributor to the negligent act, that it would have been most elementary for them to have examined the offending bus driver, conductor or any other person who was present at the time of the accident precisely to say how the incident took place, and failing to do so, the respondent cannot take advantage of this plea. In the present instance we need to uphold the submission of the appellant that the contributory negligence finding could not have only been based on the admission; there ought to have been other cogent and convincing evidence to establish this and if this material was lacking, that the finding of the Tribunal in this regard was unjustified. The appellant consequently is entitled to the whole of the compensation that is awarded.
(3.) THOUGH perhaps, much could have been said about the submission of the appellant's learned advocate, we are equally handicapped insofar as with the very limited record or limited evidence that was produced, all that can be held is that from the nature and gravity of the injuries, the level of period spent in the hospital, that the amount awarded under the head 'pain and suffering' was abnormally low. We accordingly enhance this head to Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) in the special facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall stand enhanced at rs. 40,000. The rate of interest that has been awarded by the trial court is correct, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case we award a uniform rate of interest at 9 per cent from the date of filing of the application by the appellant. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount in keeping with the award as amended by the order of this court with the Tribunal within an outer limit of 8 weeks from today. The Tribunal shall, on receipt of the amount, release the same to the appellant. The appeal succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.;