HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD Vs. P VENU PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application filed by the petitioner who is respondent-1 in this appeal for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). the Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,700/-. The petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 35,240/-as compensation in the petition. Against the order of the Tribunal. Respondent 1, the General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore has come in appeal before us.

(2.) It was alleged in the petition that on 15-12-1965 after the shift was over in H. A. L. he boarded the bus MYD 3378 belonging to H. A. L. at about 4-30 p. m. When the bus approached the military hospital at Damlur road, its right wheel went over the pit about 1.32 ft, in diameter which was on the right and suddenly took a turn right and dashed against a tree at a distance of 20 to 25 ft. which gave away and thereafter it dashed against another tree. The petitioner who was sitting near the windscreen on the seat by the side of the driver to his left side, as a result of the impact, sustained injuries which were of the nature of compound fracture. On the evidence adduced in the case, the Tribunal found that it is proved that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving. On the basis of its finding, the Tribunal awarded damages to the petitioner as mentioned above.

(3.) Mr. Ravindra, learned counsel for the appellant, advanced four contentions before us. His first contention was that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the claim petition for compensation. His grievance was that the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance on the evidence of the petitioner P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 his brother who are interested witnesses. He submitted that it is in the evidence of the doctor P. W. 4 that the petitioner was alright when he was discharged viz., on 4-1-1966. He also contended in this contention that there Is no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner required rest after 15-2-1966. Even if Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-2K the certificates are taken into consideration, those documents go to show that the petitioner was not well from 5-1-1966 to 21-3-1966 and, even if this period is to be excluded, there would be a delay of 15 days in filing the petition which is a clear indication of the inaction on the part of the petitioner.