On 12.03.2007, while the appellant was going along the Perumbavoor- Puthencruz public road riding a motorcycle, the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KL40-1613 owned and driven by the 1st respondent took a sudden turn to the right without giving any signal causing the motorcycle to hit on the autorickshaw. Alleging that the accident was due to the result of the negligence of the 1st respondent, the appellant filed application for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent. The appellant is not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal. 2. Heard.
3. The Tribunal deducted 50% towards contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. This cannot be accepted. The principle of res ipsa loquitor applies. The very fact that the motorcycle hit at the back of the auto rickshaw which was going ahead shows that there was negligence on the part of the appellant. Though the immediate cause of the accident was the swerving of the auto rickshaw without signal, it is clear that the appellant was not keeping safe distance which resulted the accident. The percentage of contribution was fixed at 50%. This appears to be very high. The contribution can be fixed at 30%.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads is not reasonable. The appellant sustained the following injuries.
“ Fracture of the clavicle on the right side and the 4/ 5th metacarpal. There was laceration on the right mid forearm.”
5. The appellant did not produce any document to prove his occupation or income. Still the Tribunal fixed it at Rs.3,500/-, which appears to be reasonable. He was granted three months income under the head loss of earnings. The nature of the injury compels me to hold that the amount awarded under this head is just and proper. The amounts awarded under the heads transport to hospital, extra nourishment, by-standers expenses, treatment expenses also are reasonable.
6. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.21,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.14,000/- under the head loss of amenities. The appellant produced a certificate to show that he sustained 15% permanent disability. The Tribunal rightly held that there is no evidence to show that the permanent disability has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal fixed the permanent disability at 7%. The nature of the injuries indicates that even this 7% is on the higher side. The amounts awarded under the heads pain and sufferings and loss of amenities are also more than what the appellant deserves.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to recover an amount of Rs.66,486/- (Rupees sixty six thousand four hundred and eighty six only) instead of Rs.47,400/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE NS