1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.23 OF 1991 The Commissioner, The Municipal Corporation of Kolhapur, Kolhapur .. Petitioner versus Pravin Madhusudan Ranganekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mrs.Anita A. Agarwal for the appellant Smt.S.V.Sonawane, A.G.P for respondent No.7. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th May 2010. JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the opponent No.1 in a claim petition filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained in the accident. The 1st respondent was travelling by a matador owned by the 2nd respondent. A bus owned by the appellant came from the opposite direction and gave a dash to matador. The Tribunal found that the driver of the matador as well as the driver of the bus owned by the appellant were guilty of negligence. The compensation of Rs.21,550/ - was granted 2 by the Tribunal. Out of the compensation amount , 70% was made payable by the appellant and 30% was made payable by the 2nd respondent who was the owner of the matador. 2. The first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the entire negligence was that of driver of matador. Without prejudice to the said contention she submitted that even assuming that there was a composite negligence, the liability of the appellant could not be to the extent of 70% and at the most it can be 50%. The learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The claim petition arises out of an award made in Claim Petition No.22 of 1980. There cannot be any dispute that the 1st respondent sustained injuries due to accident. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of Dr.Mrs.Arati Joshi who deposed that there were eleven injuries sustained by the respondent. After considering the evidence of Dr.Mrs.Joshi, the learned Member of the Tribunal observed thus: “..... He has further claimed that there was a loss of memory and he also sustained other injuries. The petitioner has 3 examined Dr.Mrs.Arati Joshi (exhibit 83) and according to her, she found in all 11 injuries on the person of the petitioner, out of which there were 6 contused lacerated wounds on the central part of stornum, left side of neck supra clavicular region. On the right side of the chest on the above the nipple on the lower lip-facial deep, on the left cheek-facial deep and on the inner side of the lower lip. She found that there was a cerebral contusion and she also noticed multiple abrasions over the are of 8” X 10” on the chest. There was a fracture of shaft of right femur, middle 1/3rd fracture of proximal end of the right second metacarpal bone and fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs on the right side with surgical emphysema. She has further stated that when the petitioner was brought in the hospital he was semiconscious. Injuries were sutured and subsequently after contusion of brain was settled and after the fracture of ribs were needed, nailing was done in respect of fracture of femur of right leg. She has also produced X-ray plates at exhibit 84. The petitioner was discharged on 29th October 1979. ....” 4. The disability certificate shows that the left leg of the 1st respondent is shortened by one and half inch. The permanent 4 disability is estimated to be 10%. 5. The 1st respondent underwent hospitalisation for one month and ten days. Apart from shortening of the length of the left leg, a steel rod was fixed in his right leg. On the basis of documentary evidence on record a sum of Rs.4550/- has been awarded to the 1st respondent on account of medical expenses. On account of loss of income for six months , a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. On account of undergoing a surgery for removal of rod , a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded. On account of disability, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been granted. On account of pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. Considering the extent of injuries, the compensation appears to be reasonable and no fault can be found with the amount fixed by the Tribunal. 6. As far as argument based on negligence is concerned, the appeal stands dismissed as against the 2nd respondent by order dated 8th July 2008. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the matador. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence and the proportion of 70-30 fixed by the tribunal cannot be disturbed as the award has become final as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned. Therefore, the argument based on the negligence of the driver of the 5 matador cannot be considered in this appeal. 7. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)