1 F.A. No.503 of 2008 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAUTRE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 503 OF 2008 Shri. Ramanlal Babulal Dugad ... Appellant Versus Shri. Pratap Yeshwant Patil ... Respondent Mr. Kishore Patil Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Shrikant Chavan holding for Mr. Umesh Mankapure for respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : APRIL 08, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle to challenge the correctness and legality of the judgment and award of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sangli whereby the compensation of Rs.45,855/­ has been awarded to the respondent with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. The respondent is held to have contributed to the extent of 25% in the negligence leading to the accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who works as Clerk in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation at Tasgaon was proceeding on his bicycle on 3rd March, 1998 at about 11.45 a.m. 2 F.A. No.503 of 2008 towards S.T. depot. When he was near S.T. depot and about to take turn towards the depot after giving signal by hand, a scooter owned and driven by the appellant came from behind at s high speed and dashed against the bicycle. The respondent fell down from the bicycle and sustained fracture injury to his right leg along with injuries on his head and left shoulder. He was initially treated by PW 2 Dr. Chandrakant Pawar and after by P.W. 3 Dr. Anil Shinde. The respondent claimed to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 10% on account of the accident. 3. The compensation claimed by the respondent under various heads from the appellant was of Rs.1,33,000/­. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence led before it held that the respondent was entitled to receive compensation of Rs.61,940/­ and it also held that the respondent had contributed to the negligence to the extent of 25%. The appellant therefore, was directed to pay 75% of the compensation awarded to the respondent. 4. The appellant in his written statement had contended that the accident had not taken place on account of the collision between his scooter and the bicycle of the respondent. He alleged that at the relevant time a jeep came from behind the respondent at a high 3 F.A. No.503 of 2008 speed and overtook his bicycle. Due to the sudden appearance of the jeep, the respondent was frightened and he applied brakes to stop his bicycle. But as his left leg is lame, he could not maintain his balance by touching the leg to the ground. Consequently, he fell down and sustained injuries. It is contended, that the scooter owned by the appellant was not at all concerned with the said accident. This claim of the appellant, however, seems to have been given a go bye in the evidence. The appellant has examined himself in support of his case. He deposed strongly that at the relevant time, he was not at the scene of accident at all. His evidence being contrary to the written statement the Tribunal rejected the same and accepted the evidence of the respondent as regards the occurrence of the accident. The police papers relating to the accident support the version of the respondent. In the circumstances, the finding by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 5. As regards the award of compensation, the break up of the same is as under : Rs.38,640 ... for medical expenses, Rs. 2,500 ... for cost of attendance and etc. Rs.20,000 ... for pain and suffering. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rs.61,140 ... Total compensation ======== 4 F.A. No.503 of 2008 The respondent has not challenged the impugned judgment and Award. Perusal of the record and the documents produced by the respondent and the evidence of the two doctors shows that the award of Rs.38,640/­ towards the medical expenses is justified. The compensation of Rs.2500/­ towards the cost of attendance and Rs. 20,000/­ for pain and suffering is also fair and reasonable. Thus, there is nothing falling for consideration of this Court in the First Appeal. Hence, First appeal is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)