NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD HUBLI v. SHRI SANGAPPA SHIVAPPA

in the pleadings of the parties raised two issues and on the evidence tendered by the claimant answered both issues in the affirmative. The appellant- transport corporation is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal.

4. The learned Counsel appellant assailing the impugned judgment would contend, that the accident in question was totally due to negligence of the claimant and not the negligence of the driver of the bus. He drew our attention to certain admissions in the cross-examination of claimant, wherein he is said to have stated he had switched off headlights of the vehicle to give passage to the oncoming two wheeler and that he 4 had not seen the traffic ahead. The driver of the KSRPC bus is described as important witness who in his testimony merely states he was not negligent. As we see from the report of the investigating officer on receipt of the complaint relating to the accident has inspected spot, the vehicles and filed final report in the form of charge sheet arraigning driver of the KSRTC bus as accused for rash and negligent driving. The said charge sheet filed against the driver of the appellant has not been brought in question till date. It is material to refer to provision of section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages that the police officer investigating the accident is required to submit a report of his finding to the jurisdictional motor vehicle tribunal. The said final report so filed by the Investigating Officer is required to be accepted by the Tribunal as the claim petition itself as postulated under the provision of section 4 of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, statutorily the credence is given to investigation report of the police ‘I officer unless the same has been negated by the contra the Corporation for the In the instant case, evidence. time has questioned lack of negligence in the driving of its driver before the Tribunal without questioning the finding of the Investigation Officer. Be that as it may. Even the evidence led by the appellant before the Tribunal is so feeble that it hardly establishes negligence on the claimant, and in no way absolves the driver of the KSRTC bus of the culpable negligence. Viewed from any angle, keeping in view the finding of the Investigating Officer is to be noticed that claimant was riding his motor vehicle ahead of the KSRTC bus. It is the KSRTC bus driver who is said to have, while negotiating the road, hit against the rider. Nothing is brought. to the contrary to show the accident has occurred in the manner different from what averred in the claim petition and charge sheet. We are therefore satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the appellant to be rash and negligent and \1’ 6 consequently the Corporation. No case is made out to interfere with the said finding.

5. As regards quantum is concerned, claimant is Government employee and therefore, his contention that he had been earning from private practice as veterinary inspector was not conceivable. It was further contended, that since the claimant has failed establish he was permanent Government service, there is no question of considering the loss of income. The learned Counsel for appellant has contended that even if it is to be held that the injury suffered by the claimant had caused any physical disability, being a Government Servant he will not lose any income and hence, no award is permissible. We have considered this ground, in this regard, evidence shows that the claimant has not only stated he was veterinary inspector working in a co-operative society in the village but he had also a regular earning of 7 cross- Despite from private practice. Rs.8000/- examination of the witness. Corporation has not been able to solvage anything in its favour to negate its claim. On the other hand, we find in fact. situation that the the claimant as veterinary inspector certainly had a regular earning from his private practice in rural area where he lives. His avocation as veterinary inspector in a co operative society has not been questioned by KSRTC. What is questioned is, his claim of private practice. If that be so, then the regular earning of the claimant may be excluded while calculating future earning. But his private practice needs consideration because as per medical evidence, the fracture of lower limb bones has caused 45% disability which is hampering him from movement. There is rigidity due to damage to the bone of lower limb and he finds it difficult to walk in rural areas if he has to attend to his profession as Veterinary Inspector. Naturally, he may have to walk and live in the village which is said to be difficult process. The 8 doctor’s assessment of 45% is supported from clinical finding as recorded in the wound certificate and other medical records. For the purpose of calculating loss of future income, the Tribunal has reduced it to 35%. We do not find such finding of the Tribunal liberal or unreasonable.

6. For computing loss of income, the Tribunal has not taken the income of the injured at Rs. 10,000/- from the regular service and Rs.8000/- from his private practice as cliamed. The Tribunal has fixed his income at Rs.3000/- which is normally the earning taken for unskilled labourer. The grievance of the Corporation certainly has been considered by the Tribunal and we are satisfied that any further reduction will result in unjust award. Therefore, fixation of Rs.3000/- as income of the injured and calculating loss of future earning at 35% is well founded and we find no reasons to interfere with the same. w. 9

7. In the result, the appeal fails and it dismissed. sd/ ]tDGE sub*