The court modified the contributory negligence of the claimant from 50% to 25% and enhanced the compensation awarded due to inadequate initial assessments.

UDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the unsatisfied claimant in respect of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 27.01.2022 in MVC No.1492/2020 on the file of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT Belagavi, Sitting at Gokak (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) praying for enhancement of compensation and questioning the contributory negligence saddled against him by the Tribunal.

2. Parties would be referred to with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident that had taken place on 25.07.2014 at 08.30 p.m. on Gokak- Ghataprabha road involving motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 17/U-7204 and the NWKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F- 515.

4. It is the case of claimant that on 25.07.2014, when he being the rider and one Nagappa as pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17/U-7204, was proceeding from Arabhavi Math towards Ghataprabha, the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-515 came from opposite side with rash and negligence, on the wrong side, and dashed against the motor cycle, which resulted in the fall of claimant, pillion rider and motor cycle; due to which, he sustained comminuted fracture of middle 1/3^rd of tibia, fracture of right fibula, loss of knee joint cartilage at right knee and other injuries.

5. It is further contended that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 26 years and was doing goundy work (mason) and he spent Rs.1,20,000/- towards treatment and required a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for removal of implants. It is stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Because of the accident, he could not work at all and there is shortening of his limb and he is permanently disabled. Two attendants attended him in the hospital and also during follow-up treatment, he spent Rs.800/- per day for them. He spent Rs.2,000/- towards each follow-up treatment towards conveyance. Hence, claimed compensation under different heads.

6. On receipt of notice, respondent filed its objection statement denying the contention of petitioner in toto and further contended that only due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motor cycle, who lost control over the motor cycle and dashed against the bus, thereby causing the accident. The driver was driving the bus in moderate speed. There is 6 years' delay in filing the claim petition and thus it is time barred. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining a doctor as P.W.2 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.39 on behalf of claimant before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondent, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1 apart from marking Exs.R.1 and R.2 and closed its side before the Tribunal.

8. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is equal contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motor cycle and bus driver and thus saddled liability of only 50% on the respondent and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,08,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri Vitthal S Teli would submit that only because the claimant was not having driving licence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is 50% co