The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation in a motor accident compensation case.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Dukle for the appellant-claimant and Mr. Kakodkar for respondent no.2-insurance company.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 12.11.2010 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.194/2009 to the extent the same has denied the appellant-claimant the claimed compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs together with interest @ 9% p.a. The Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 1,55,680/-but awarded the appellant-claimant compensation of only Rs. 46,704/- with interest @ 9% p.a. holding that the appellant-claimant contributed to the accident to the extent of 70%.

3. Mr. Dukle, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the finding about contributory negligence has no support from the evidence on record. He points out that no written statement was filed by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, no evidence was led, and no questions were posed during cross-examination suggestive of any case of contributory negligence.

4. Mr. Dukle submits that the medical evidence of Dr. Zelio D'Mello (PW8) was not considered in a proper perspective, and his statement that the claimant would have difficulty squatting on the ground and working as a tile fitter was not given adequate consideration. He submits that towards permanent disability, additional compensation of Rs. 30,000/- should have been awarded because the claimant's functional disability was at least 15 to 20 per cent.

5. Mr. Dukle submits that the claimant's income should be taken at Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 6,000/-. He submits that the attendant's charges of Rs. 31,050/- and travelling expenses of Rs. 18,000/- were unduly denied to the claimant. He submits that the medical evidence also established treatment spread over nine months, and therefore the compensation towards loss of income should have been Rs. 54,000/- and not merely Rs. 30,000/-. Based on all this, Mr. Dukle submits that the compensation of Rs. 2,64,730/-was due and payable to the claimant.

6. Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the insurance company, defends the impugned judgment and award based on the reasoning therein. He submits that the Tribunal has been charitable in computing the compensation and attributing only 70% liability to the claimant. He points out that the claimant came to the Court with a false case that the Tribunal rightly discarded. Finally, he points out that it is the claimant who the independent investigating agencies prosecuted because his negligence was quite evident in this matter.

7. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the claimant did not even have the license to drive the scooter. Accordingly, Mr. Kakodkar submits that this appeal may be dismissed for all these reasons.

8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

9. Based on the rival contentions, the following points arise for determination in this appeal:

(a) Whether the Tribunal's finding on contributory negligence warrants interference for modification?

(b) Whether the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal represents just compensation?

10. On the first point, the record bears out that the accident occurred on 11.07.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., in which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant has pleaded his version about the genesis of this accident. The Maruti car driver/owner (offending vehicle) did not bother to file any written statement or step into the witness box to explain his version of the genesis of the accident. Therefore, even in the cross-examination, the case of contributory negligence or the absence of negligence on the part of the Maruti car owner/driver was not properly put up. The insurance company also did not examine any independent witnesses regarding the genesis of the accident.

11. At the same time, the record also bears out that the investigating authorities did not think it appropriate to register FIR against the claimant upon investigation. Mr. Dukle admitted that the claimant was prosecuted, though acquitted i