GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THE injured/appellant filed the present appeal against the award in M. V. O. P. No. 152 of 1992 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, chittoor, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,59,200 towards injuries sustained by the appellant and applying the theory of contributory negligence on both parties and thus making the respondent liable to pay 50 per cent of the awarded amount.

( 2 ) IT is contended in the present appeal that in the absence of any cogent and categorical evidence and particularly in view of non-examination of the driver of the bus who was solely responsible for the accident and who was the actual person to speak about the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have applied the theory of contributory negligence. It is also contended that the finding of the Tribunal contributing negligence on the injured is unwarranted and unjustified in the given situation. The brief facts of the case are as follows: that on 25. 9. 1991 at about 8. 30 a. m. , the petitioner was proceeding on his Hero honda vehicle and a bus bearing No. TN 23-N 0232 belonging to the respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner in between Gandhipuram and Perumallapalle on Tirupathi-Chandragiri Road, as a result the petitioner received grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to S. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi and was admitted as inpatient and remained there till 7. 11. 1991 and as the crush fractures of bones are of serious nature, he was advised to take treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad and on 8. 11. 91, the petitioner injured was got admitted in nims, Hyderabad as an inpatient. That at nims hospital the petitioner/injured was treated for wound debridement and reapplication of external fixation to tibia and sequestrectomy on 11. 11. 1991 and later skin-grafting and muscle grafting was also done and the petitioner/injured was discharged on 29. 1. 1992. It is stated that at the time of discharge the doctor advised the petitioner for daily dressing and sugar tests and also advised for bed-rest.

( 3 ) IT is contended that at the time of accident petitioner/injured was working as headmaster in M. P. P. Elementary School, nagaiahgaripalle and drawing a salary of rs. 1,929. 70 and was also undertaking tuitions and earning Rs. 20,000 per annum. It is further contended that during the period of hospitalisation at NIMS, Hyderabad his parents attended on him by staying at Hyderabad for which he had incurred substantial expenditure. It is further stated that petitioner s right leg and right hand developed deformity due to bone fracture and that the infirmity and that pain would continue for the whole life, that his future prospects of securing executive posts as a scientist had become remote and that his movements were restricted. It is further stated that the petitioner has passed the preliminary exams for Group II APPSC and has got an interview for the post of lecturer in the month of December, 1992 but he could not attend the same as he was bedridden and that due to physical deformity his prospects for marriage became bleak and that the same could not be compensated in terms of money.

( 4 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT filed by the respondent denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and stated that the bus was proceeding slowly when it reached Perumallapalle because a tractor was going ahead of the bus and on the opposite direction a lorry followed by the A. P. S. R. T. C. bus followed by the petitioner on his motor cycle was coming and that the petitioner overtook the R. T. C. bus in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and that the driver of the respondent bus noticed the high speed of the petitioner and swerved the bus to the extreme left and stopped, however, the petitioner proceeded on his right side and dashed against the bus on its front right side and the vehicle dragged the petitioner to a distance of 15 ft. and thus attributed the negligence o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document