The court upheld the finding of negligence against the truck driver, modifying the compensation awarded by the tribunal after assessing notional income and disability claims, ultimately granting ₹4,40,800 to the claimant.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the second and third respondents/owners, in O.P.(MV) No.191 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenging the liability to pay the award amount as well as the quantum of compensation. The first respondent herein is the claimant before the tribunal. The second respondent – driver is deleted from the party array vide order dated 24.09.2024 in I.A.No.3/2024 in M.A.C.A.No.3802 of 2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.12.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/AN-5751 from Nochima to Aluva through the NAD road, an offending NAD truck driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the claimant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,27,000/-, which is limited to ₹6,00,000/-. 3. The first, second and third respondents were the driver and the owners of the offending vehicle respectively. Though the first respondent entered the appearance, no written statement was filed. The second and third respondents filed a written statement admitting the accident and contending that the accident was not on account of any negligence or laches on the part of the first respondent driver. In the additional written statement, they contended that as per the F.I. Statement in Crime No.2286 of 2007, the case of the claimant was that he was the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/A- 5722 but the AMVI’s report would show that the claimant was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7/AN-5751 and at the same time, the FIR would show that the claimant was travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/A-5722. Before the tribunal, Pws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 & Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a sum of ₹6,65,461/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the owner. Challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants/owners has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

5. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck belonging to the appellant and that the entire negligence was on the part of the claimant himself in causing the accident. In support of his contentions, he relied on the AMVI reports, which were marked as Exts. A5 and A6. It was further contended that the FIR is false and that Ext. A7 charge-sheet is a twisted and distorted version put forward by the claimant, devoid of truth or bona fides.

6. The learned Central Government Counsel further submitted that, at the time of lodging the FIR, the claimant had stated that he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-07A-5722, whereas in the statement given on 12.12.2007, he stated that he himself was riding the motorcycle. Further, on 13.12.2007, the claimant filed a statement before the police stating that the correct registration number of the vehicle ridden by him was KL-07/AN- 5751 and that the number earlier mentioned as KL-07/A-5722 was incorrect. 7. According to the learned Central Gov