The assessment of damages requires consideration of contributory negligence while ensuring compensation reflects the full extent of loss due to permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. In assailing the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2023 passed by the 4^th M.A.C.T., Sundargarh (in short, the “Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No. 48/66 of 2018-22, the appellant, who was the claimant in such proceeding has preferred this appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) to challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded to him.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the present appeal arises out of the proceeding before the learned Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 48/66 of 2018-22 for an accident that took place on 14.12.2017 at about 12.30PM, when the claimant, who by profession a Constable then was going on a motorcycle bearing Regd. No. OR-16B-1409 towards his rented house in Jharsuguda near Durlaga Airport, Jharsuguda, one oil tanker bearing Regd. No. OD-14B-8949 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle resulting in serious injuries to the claimant, who after the accident was shifted to different hospitals, but due to accident, he became 90% disabled resulting in loss of job for him, however, the accident was registered vide Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 821 of 2017 resulting in submission of charge sheet.

2.1. On this accident, the claimant approached the learned Tribunal in an application U/S.166 of the Act claiming total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under various heads for the loss suffered by him arising out of the injuries in the accident by averring inter alia about accident taking place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and him loosing of his job with salary at Rs.25,630/- by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. In response to the notice of the claim in M.A.C. Case No. 48/66 of 2018-22, both the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle appeared and filed their written statement denying their liability, but the insurer further denied its liability for paying compensation to the claimant for him being rash and negligent in the accident.

3. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed primarily two issues with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the entitlement of the claimant to the compensation and accordingly, allowed the parties to lead evidence, however, the claimant examined himself and another Gangadhar Oram as PWs.1 & 2 and exhibited around 22 documents under Exts.1 to 21 together with one letter under Exts.X as against the oral evidence of OPW.1 and documentary evidence of Exts A to C by the OPs. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment directed the insurer-cum-Respondent No.2 (R-2) to pay compensation of Rs.35,71,648/- @ 50% of the liability together with 6% Simple Interest (SI) per annum to the claimant on a proportion of 50-50% contributory negligence, but the claimant being aggrieved with the apportionment of liability at the rate of 50-50% has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard, Ms. Sushrita Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anupam Dash, learned counsel for R-2 and Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for R-1 in the matter and perused the record.

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, primarily the points emerge for consideration in this appeal are whether the claimant had in fact contributed to the accident and whether the award is just and proper. Moving to the first issue, it appears that the learned Tribunal has referred to the evidence of the claimant and concluded that the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle had equally contri