^lfnn"Wn ?*?B"-^4toh* e° M^) •§'•";:% ;-l'-!::si®®5c'^; !? CT :3- .m;;a 'su . ,s- l%w1.il^ll'i •5'^^',,'':Swiff'^^!t ^•iItSR 'tiiM1! ^s.^ 'z.s:s' ;a.s^®:, l%:°';i::^3i:€' ^Si^%ii3.: ilgiiilii ''S^^S'S^-^'s ilit:! •'^fl)^1^^^ !@.eo'-s':^s: ^;€S?:W.Z' ;t]|-o||(|;^ i'iiiil m<.-'. spj'BAO^ -/0009'SH Pue sraooui ajrqnj jo sso^ spjBMO^ -/000'09"SH 'Suusjjns pue ured spjEMO^ -/O009's5i isssusdxs ^oipaiu pwe ^usmi^aj^ spjBAO^ -/000'05'sy pspJBAB puv sp^o JOIOTM pue spiqsA jo sj3AUp 3tp Tpoq jo ved sq^ uo aousSi^Ssu Aio^nqu^uoo SI.P punoj ^T a-iojsq ps^ souspiAS-sqi Suuspisuoo punquj, sqj, •i? •dssp -BJpU3qB]/\[ JO ^usuisApAUT aqi os^ pLre ^usppui sq^ psmsp AuBdiuoo asiiBjnsui 3lp '^USUIS^B^S US^UA S^T UI •^U3§I(§3U S'BA JpSmiq 3pA JO^OUI 3t[^ JO J3AUp Sqj, -^OV saptqsAloioyt puB sainy sspiqsA J010]/\[ JO UOpBpIA UI SI qoiqA suosjsd ssjq^ SJSA ajsq^ spA JO^OUJ UO pUB ^USppOB JO 3XMp aty. fB SOUSOT^ pn'BA SuiA^q lOU SBA 3pA JO^OUI 3l[^ JO JSAUp ^Bq^ p3"t^s Au^duioo sou^jnsui sqi qoiqM &\ ^eunquj, aqi sjojsq ^USUIS^B^S uanuA s^i psiy s'eq pa^iuiiq AirediuoQ ssuBJnsui ^USUQ 3i[j. - E'ON ^uspuodssy -i^unquj, sqi sjojsq s^ied xa SBA ^ 23 T '°N s^uspuodsaj ax.[j, -^unquj, suire^o aqt ajojsq ps'[g SBA Lunuu'e jsd o/gg-[ ^•e ^ssja^ui LpTM SUOIB -/000'00'OT'sy jo uop'esuaduioo Sui?[33s uoppad TUTCIO •g •A^i{iq'Bsip %Q9 psjsjjns fav\\3d<S.v avft Tetf]. punoj ooqooBg 'JQ '^idsoq syeAud v UT psniajpB os\v S'BA uremrep sqj, -ajnto^Jj 01 snp 33\ siq u; patjssui S^A poj v p-ae pi^dsoH ui ps^iujp^ sv/fi ^u^mrep sqj, •jndrey 'uop'e^g aoiiod v.Tedvj.is'sfi^ •pe p3§po\SV/& "yi'd 'Ssi W3y siq uo s-in^o'ejj paui^sns lue^sdd^ 3Lp 'iusppOB o^ ana 'ireqp-iSAOO suo Aq usAi-ip S^A spAo JO^OLU pTCS 3L[1 pUB J3pU UOT^Td SB jndusqqv uiojj jndnsy 01 SUTUJOO ST3A T.we\\3dd-e sqj, ^uspToo^ pasn^o pu^ frZTZ/^IZ/frO 'O'O UOT^JISTSSJ Suu^aq spAo jo^otu aqi psqs'ep pu'e ApusSflSsu puB AiqsBJ (spiqsA SuTpusjjo) 0099/3/170 "0'3 'ON uopBj^siggj guiJGaq dsap Bjpuaqeyi ojs^og SuiAup STA UBLCT LUI^S'['ON ^uspuodsaj •ux-d S17-9 ^noq^ TOSU 90QS"TO'Te uo ^BLp ST SSBO avp. jo S^OBJ jsug •5 •^usuiA^d yanyye jo a^Bp aq^ np uopiiad mrep aq^ jo Sung jo aysp s^ uiojj mnuire jsd 0/^5 @ ^.ss.ia^uT ipiA Suo^ lu^uirep 3Lp o^ uop^susduioo SB -/OOO'O-t'"8^ "3"T ^dVfe <i :^J) treatment in future. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.80000/- as total compensation and after recording a finding that since two vehicles are involved in the accident and both the drivers of the vehicles are responsible for contributory negligence, it awarded only Rs.40,000/- to the claimant and directed respondent No.3 to pay said compensation to the claimant. Hence, this appeal is flled. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not properiy evaluated the evidence; it has also not awarded any amount towards loss of business and has wrongly recorded the finding of contributory negligence. He also argued that the appellant suffered 60% disability, therefore, Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future income is not proper and it ought to be increased. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insvirance coinpany supported the impugned award and submitted that the award is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and no scope for interference by this Court is seen. 7. After hearing both the parties and after perusal of record and documents annexed therewith, it is clear that the Tribunal has found that the driver of the offending vehicle (Mahendra Jeep) was negligent as he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, on account of which, he dashed the motor cycle, resulting into fracture to the appellant. So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, it is evident from the stateruent of the appellant that motor cycle was being driven by one Goverdhan and the present appellant and one person were also sitting on motor cycle as pillion riders. Thus, the motor cycle was being driven in violation of Rules of Motor Vehicle Act. The learned Tribunal has rightly recorded finding of contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles. 8. So far as 60% disability suffered by the appellant is concemed, Dr. Bacchoo A.W.l has deposed in his evidence that he saw the appellant on 09.12.2005. The accident took place on 31.01.2005 and the injured visited him on 09.12.2005. Thus, it is clear that after 10 months of incident, the appellant was inedically examined by this witness and after medical examination of the appellant this witness found that the appellant suffered from 60% disability. This witness admitted that the appellant has not sustained any fracture on his hip. He further subniitted that the fracture of the appellant was healed. Thus, it is clear that taking into consideration the said fact the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.80,000/- including loss ofincome. 9. On close scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the claimant. Since there was contributoiy negligence on the part of both the drivers, the Tribunal has not erred in awardmg 50% of the awarded sum to the claimant. 10. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the findings reporded by the Tribunal are purely on the basis of legal, clinching and reliable evidence and as such I do not find any scope for enhancement'of compensation amount. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. R.L. Jhanwar le