K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE appeal is against the assessment of compensation for Rs. 2 lacs for injuries suffered in the accident. The total amount under various heads has been calculated by the Tribunal at Rs. 4 lacs but it was reduced to 50% on the ground of contributory negligence of the driver of the van in which the claimant was travelling.
(2.) THE accident had taken place on 26.01.1993 by a collision of three vehicles. The claimant was travelling in a maruti van and one truck bearing registration No. PBT -9311 dashed against the left side of the van. The claimant, who was sitting in the back seat of the van suffered fracture for right leg above the ankle and also suffered injuries on his head. The maruti van had also been seriously damaged. About the same time, yet another truck bearing registration No. PB -02 -9985 struck against the truck bearing registration No. PBT -9311. The contention on behalf of the respondent was that there was indeed a collision between two trucks referred to above but there had been no accident at all involving the maruti van. A DDR which was recorded under Ex.RW3/1 merely registered the fact of collision between the two trucks and there was no reference to collision with the maruti van at all. The respondent would, therefore, contend that if at all any accident involving the damage of the vehicle or injuries to the passengers in the vehicle, it must have been caused by some other accident. The Tribunal however discarded the case as put forward by the respondent. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there had been an independent FIR lodged by the claimant herself under Ex.P1 at the police station at Subhanpur on 05.02.1993. The delay in lodging the FIR had been explained by the fact that she had been hospitalized soon after the accident and she could not lodge the FIR in time. The Tribunal also found that in the DDR under Ex.RW3/1, there was reference to yet another tractor and trolley and that the truck was trying to avoid hitting the tractor and trolley. The Tribunal reasoned that this avoidance must have resulted in the collision with the claimant's maruti van as well. The Tribunal, however, found that the driver of the maruti van itself ought to have been examined and the non -examination must be taken as meaning that his own driving contributed to the accident. It is not clear from the judgment about ownership of the van. If the vehicle had belonged to some person other than the claimant, it could still be taken as a case of composite negligence. If there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the van, it could be still possible for the claimant to make a claim against the truck for the whole amount and leaving it to the truck owner and insurer to seek for contribution from the owner or insurer of the van. Since there are no details available and the Tribunal as assuming maruti van to belong to the claimant herself, it has applied the contributory negligence to make an abatement of 50% of the claim on a reasoning that both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident. With the inadequate details available, I will not modify the issue of liability and I will retain the same.
(3.) AS regards the quantum of compensation, the claimant had suffered a permanent disability. Here again the copy of disability certificate is not available and the original papers have been burnt. In the manner of reconstruction of the papers, the claimant had not thought fit to make available the copy of the certificate. The claimant had been a practising doctor and she had mental agony of having to undergo an open reduction by a surgical procedure and for reducing the fracture by implant of iron plates. There is simply no discussion anywhere in the judgment about the nature of injuries, the number of days of hospitalization, the percentage of disability assessed, the loss of income or any of the materials which are crucial for determination of compensation. The Tribunal has merely assessed Rs. 4 lacs as compensation payable and caused an abatement of 50% of the claim. With the inadequate material and poor quality of assistance that I have secured, there is no scope for any modification.;