THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.No.2636 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appellant, who is the claimant, filed O.P.No.121 of 93 on the file of the District Judge, Ongole, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 11-02-1993. The court below by its order, dated 25-11-1996, held that the claimant is also equally responsible for the said accident and, therefore, he is entitled for 50% of the compensation and accordingly, having held that the claimant is entitled for Rs.59,000/-, awarded compensation of Rs.29,500/- along with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed contending that there was no contributory negligence as per the evidence available on record and the finding recorded by the court below stating that the claimant was also equally fault, is without any basis. It is further stated that the claim of the claimant for Rs.1,50,000/- is just and reasonable. It is the case of the claimant that he was aged 19 years at the time of accident and on 11-02-1993, he was engaged as labourer for loading and unloading earth on the Tractor bearing No.AP-27/T-2816 and he along with other coolies went to Ullagallu Village on the said Tractor Trailor. After loading earth on the Trailor, he along with other coolies while returning to Rajampalli Village by sitting on earth load, the driver of the said Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the claimant slipped from earth load and fell on the ground and the tyre of the Tractor ran over his left leg and thereby, he sustained serious injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Darsi, and thereafter he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where his left leg was amputated below the knee. It is stated that he became disabled permanently and unable to attend coolie work and he is unmarried. Due to amputation of leg, his marriage prospects also adversely affected. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor alone. Therefore, the owner of the Tractor as well as the insurance company are liable to pay compensation. It is the case of the 1st respondent-owner of the Tractor that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor and due to the carelessness of the claimant only, he had slipped from earth. It is further stated that the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- is excessive and exorbitant. It is the case of the 2nd respondent-insurance company that the claimant was not engaged as labourer, but he was travelling as a passenger on the said Tractor and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that the driver of the Tractor was not having valid driving licence and the allegation that the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner was also denied. It is stated that the claimant himself slipped from the Tractor and, therefore, there is also negligence on the part of the claimant. On the aforesaid pleadings, the court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Trailor bearing No.AP-27/T 2815 and trailor No.AP-27/T2816? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, to what extent? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimant, he himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the insurance company, the administrative officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and the Superintendent of the Additional Licencing Authority was examined as RW.2 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. On behalf of the owner of the Tractor, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. Insofar as rash and negligent driving of the driver is concerned, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and stated that on the date of accident, he along with other three coolies were engaged by the 1st respondent for loading and unloading earth in the Trailor. After loading earth, while they were returning on the trailor for unloading on Addanki-Darsi road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, he slipped from the Trailor and fell on the road and his left leg came under the left wheel of the trailor, as a result of which, his left leg below knee to foot was crushed under the left tyre. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Darsi, for treatment. At the time of accident, he was under employment of the owner of the Tractor. Thereafter, he was referred to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, for further treatment, where he was treated as an inpatient for four months and his left leg from kneecap onwards was amputated. He used to earn Rs.35/- per day or Rs.1,000/- per month. He spent Rs.28,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- for getting artificial leg from Jaipur. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he himself slipped from the Trailor due to his negligence. It is stated that there was no negligence on his part. With regard to contributory negligence on the part of the claimant except putting a suggestion in the cross-examination that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant, no other evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of Ex.A-1-FIR and Ex.A-3-charge- sheet clearly goes to show that on 11-02-1993 after loading earth in the Tractor, while the Tractor was going from Ullgallu village, the driver drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the claimant fell on the ground and the tyre of the Tractor ran over his left leg. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. I am of the opinion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor only. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.59,000/-. The claimant was given half of the said amount only on the ground that he was also equally at fault. In view of the aforesaid finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.59,000/-, which includes Rs.24,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Insofar as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, it is not in dispute that as per the judgment of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS[1], where the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, who was not having valid driving licence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in terms of the said judgment. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum. But, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the lending rate at the relevant time was only 8%, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% to 8%. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part against the 1st respondent awarding compensation of Rs.59,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum form the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the said compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the 1st respondent in terms of the aforesaid judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 01-06-2010 Prv [1] 2004 (2) ALD 36 (SC)