IMPORTANT POINT
Contributory negligence significantly impacts compensation in motor vehicle accident claims, as established by the court's findings.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.) :

1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount quantified and awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’) by its award dated 22.04.2014 in MAC Case No.237/2013 (297/2005), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,069/- in favour of claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, which took place on 05.06.2003. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 05.06.2003, claimant was travelling in the Corporation’s Bus (RJ-06-P-1496) from Bhilwara to Kodukota, however, on account of rush of passengers in the Bus, the non-claimant No.3 asked the claimant to sit on the roof of the bus. Thereafter, while the bus was crossing Suwana turn, on account of negligent driving of the bus by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.2, the passengers including the appellant travelling on the roof of the bus, came in contact with electricity line, as a result of which the appellant received electric shock and sustained injuries. On account of such electrocution, there was fire in the bus as well.

3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition, reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.1 while opposing the submissions made in the claim petition. It was submitted that the claimant was never asked to travel while sitting on the roof of the bus and he, at his own, boarded on the roof of the bus. It was further submitted that the wires of pole installed by the Electricity Department were not at the prescribed height. The claimant himself was negligent. It was further submitted that the Electricity Department was not impleaded as party non-claimant, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be rejected. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be rejected.

4. On behalf of non-claimant, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts averred therein. It was further submitted that the claimant without obtaining ticket travelled in the Bus and so also without being permitted, he boarded on the roof of the Bus and there was no fault on the part of non-claimant No.2.

5. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 nobody appeared despite service and, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered to be drawn against him by the Tribunal on 27.03.2010.

6. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled four issues for determination.

7. For proving his case, the appellant examined himself as AW.1 and examined Dr. Aneesh Ahmed as AW.2 and also placed on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 25A. The Non-claimants examined NAW.1 Hanif Ahmed and NAW2 Surya Prakash. No documentary evidence was tendered by the non-claimants.

8. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1 and 3, after considering the evidence produced before it, has recorded a finding that the claimant, though was educated person, himself was negligent as he was travelling while sitting on the roof of the Bus and if he would not have travelled on the roof of the Bus, the incident would not take place. The learned Tribunal found that although the accident has occurred, but the claimant has also been found negligent for the cause of accident. Adverting to Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal on evaluation of evidence has apportioned contributory negligence of the claimant to the extent of 40% while making it 60% vis-a-vis the offending vehicle. The Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation has partially been partially allowed by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimant and while considering the evidence produced before it, the le