M FARCED UD DIN Vs. LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals will be disposed of by the common judgment. They arise out of three suits filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section II 0-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Appeal No. 139/1975 is by claimant, Fareeduddin against Sri Lal and Others; Appeal No. 144/1975 is by Gopal Transport Go. against Fareeduddin and Appeal No. 145/1975 is by Gopal Transport Go. against Shiv Nath Mehta.

(2.) Appellant in appeal No. 139/1975 has asked for enhancement of the amount awarded in the original suit (No. 342/1967) by which the tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs, 36,925.00 . Gopal Transport Company, the owner of the bus which was found by the tribunal to have been driven rashly and negligently by the driver, Sri Lal, and responsible for causing the accident. Appeal No. 144/1975 is against the grant of the damages to the appellant/ Fareeduddin. Appeal No. 145/1975 is filed against the grant of compensation to two other persons namely, Shiv Nath Mehta in the original Suit No. 350/ 1967 of Rs. 7070.00 . No appeal has been filed against the grant of compensation to Sham Lal.

(3.) I will first take up Appeal No. 139/1975. The accident which gave rise to the claim by the appellant, M. Fareeduddin and others occurred on 13-8-1967. The case of the appellant was that he was travelling in bus No. DLP-1152 belonging to the Delhi Transport Union (D.T.U.) which was coming from the Railway Station and going to Kalkaji. As the bus reached near the Hardings Bridge and turned towards Mathura Road a private bus belonging to respondent No. 3 being bus No. D.L.P, 3654 came from the opposite side. It was being driven rashly and negligently. The said bus hit the D.T.U. bus on the right side and dragged it towards the extreme left of the road and it struck it against a tree. The appellant who was sitting on the right side seat of the D.T.U bus was struck severely on his forearm and sustained injuries and he became unconscious. Later on he was removed to the hospital. He had to undergo series of operations and suffered loss of his earning capacity ; he claimed Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation.