THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1186 of 2003 Date: 26-8-2010 Between Kogurwar Satyanarayana … Appellant/Petitioner and 1. Suresh Kumar 2. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, 1/70 Road, New Delhi-110 032. … Respondents/Respondents 1 and 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1186 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.1-owner of lorry bearing No.HR38-6906. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal is filed challenging the order and decree dated 18-8-2000 in O.P.No.278 of 1998 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, FAC/Additional District Judge, Adilabad, in awarding a sum of Rs.26,758=50 ps., towards compensation to the petitioner as against the claim of Rs.1,03,838=80 ps., for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29-8-1997 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the lorry, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. As against the order passed by the Tribunal in apportioning contributory negligence of 75% to the driver of the lorry and 25% to the claimant and the consequential reduction in the total amount of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 5. The Tribunal framed an issue regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and eventually arrived at the conclusion that there was no consistency in the stand taken by the claimant. The claimant was not a layman and on the contrary, he was a Head Cashier in a bank. Therefore, in view of the inconsistency in the case of the claimant and inasmuch as the claimant was driving the scooter, it was held by the Tribunal that it was a case of contributory negligence of the lorry driver as well as the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that both the claimant who was driving the scooter as well as the driver of the offending lorry have contributed to the negligence. Therefore, the said negligence was apportioned between the claimant as well as the driver of the lorry at the rate of 25% and 75% respectively. Thereafter, the total sum of Rs.35,678/- was held to be the just and reasonable compensation, from out of which since the negligence of 25% was attributed to the claimant, one-fourth amount was deducted and eventually, Rs.26,758=50 ps., was awarded as compensation. 6. For the foregoing, I do not find any irrationality in the impugned order. 7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. Parties to bear respective costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1186 of 2003 26th August, 2010. (Ak)