- (1.) THIS appeal challenges the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 04.01.2005, by which, even while holding the appellant was entitled to Rs.45,000/ - as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident in question, the amount awarded was reduced by 60%, holding that the driver of both, the Gypsy (Jeep), as also of the scooter on which the appellant was riding pillion, were guilty of negligence, with the scooter driver having been held to be guilty to the extent of 60%. The appellant thus challenges both, the finding on negligence, as also seeks enhancement of compensation.
(2.) THE facts leading up to the filing of the claim petition are that on 18.01.2003, at about 5:45 PM, the appellant is stated to have been riding pillion on a scooter driven by Rajdeep Singh (not impleaded as a party either before this Court or before the Tribunal) on the road leading from the District Courts, Chandigarh to Hotel Shivalik View, with the scooter allegedly at a slow speed. When the scooter reached behind the Treasury Office, a Gypsy bearing registration No.PB -12 -E -5087, driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2, parked behind the said office, was reversed by its driver on to the road, without blowing any horn, as a result of which it struck against the scooter due to which the appellant fell down and received injuries because of which he was hospitalized and was operated upon twice. A rod is stated to have been inserted in his leg and even after discharge, he allegedly could not move his finger properly and could not lift any weight or even walk properly. As per the Disability Certificate of the Medical Board, exhibited before the learned Tribunal, it was a case of fracture of both bones of one leg with mild restriction of ankle movements, for which a disability of 5% was assessed by the Board, to the left lower limb of the appellants' body.
(3.) THE claim of the appellant, further was that he spent Rs.20,000/ - on his treatment. With the record of this case having been completely burnt and then reconstructed to the extent possible, it is not clear as to what was the total amount of compensation claimed before the Tribunal, but before this Court, in this appeal, the amount claimed is Rs.10,00,000/ -. The appellant, while appearing before the Tribunal as his own witness, stated that he was drawing a salary of Rs.3000/ - per month from the Canteen Contractor with whom he was working, but led no evidence to that effect. The Tribunal, upon considering the entire evidence, simply awarded him a lumpsum of Rs.45,000/ - as compensation, without giving any breakup with regard to the same, which, as already noticed earlier, was reduced to Rs.18,000/ - on account of the negligence of respondent no.1 having been ascertained as only 40%, with 60% being held attributable to the driver of the scooter, Ranjit Singh. Mr. Ashwani Arora, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that first, on the issue of negligence, the Tribunal wholly erred in firstly, contributing negligence of 60% to the scooter driver, whereas actually, it was the Gypsy driver (respondent no.1), who reversed on to the road from the place where he was parked behind the building, which obviously meant that respondent no.1 did not care to see as to whether the road was actually free from traffic, so as to allow him to reverse onto it, without endangering anybody. Hence, learned counsel submitted that actually it was a case of negligence wholly on the part of the said respondent, for which the driver of the scooter, Ranjit Singh, could not be held responsible in any manner. Mr. Arora next submitted that simply because the scooter was also carrying an LPG cylinder on it, the Tribunal further erred in giving that to be a factor due to which contributory negligence could be attributed to the scooter driver, which in any case was not of the appellant, who was only a pillion rider. Learned counsel further submitted that, moreover, even if this Court comes to a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the scooter driver in not being careful, or because he was carrying an LPG cylinder on the scooter, the appellant in any case could not be attributed any contributory negligence as, it would be then be, at best, a case of composite negligence of the scooter and Gypsy drivers on account of which the appellant could not be foisted with any liability.;