STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BADRI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.394/ 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10% for an accident that took place on 15th March, 1984.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:- Sh. Badri Parshad met with the accident on March, 15, 1984 at 4.30 p.m. at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. He was travelling in the bus No.HYR-3517 which was being driven by Hari Ram, respondent No.2. The said bus belonged to the Haryana Roadways. The respondent No.1 was the State of Haryana. The details about the accident as given in the petition are that on the said date and time, the petitioner was waiting at "the Nangloi Bus Stand for going to his village Radhu was in Jhajjar, District Rohtak. The bus in question came there. On the instructions of the driver and the conductor of the bus the passengers started boarding the bus from the front gate. The petitioner had also hoarded the bus from the front gate. It was alleged that the bus was at a fast speed; took a sharp turn with a big jerk and resultantly, the petitioner fall down and the rear wheel of the bus passed over leg of the petitioner. The bus was thus alleged to be driven rashly and negligently. The petitioner received serious fractures on his right thing, right foot, right leg, left foot and other parts of the body. He was removed to Willingdon Hospital where he remained admitted. Since the condition of the petitioner deteriorated, he was readmitted in the Willingdon Hospital from April 30, 1984 to May 8, 1984. The petitioner suffered immense pain, agony, shock and suffering. His right leg had been shortened as a result of the injuries and he suffered permanent limping and permanent deformity of the leg. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the permanent disability, pain and sufferings, special diet expenses, treatment, medicines and hospitalisation expenses, conveyance both present and future, loss of leave, loss of amenities of life, loss of span of life and loss of efficiency in the official duties. It was contended that besides service, the petitioner was also looking after his agricultural land and earning handsomely from there. It was contended that the petitioner cannot go to office in the bus, and, therefore, he had to engage a three- wheeler or taxi and to spend Rs.20/- per day on conveyance. The petitioner was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and he had thus about 14 years left in his service. The petitioner stanted in the petition that he was in Government Service employed in the Post Office drawing salary of Rs.950/- p.m. The police had registered a criminal case against the bus driver. In the written statement filed by respondent No.1, paragraph-8 of the petition relating to the accident was admitted. It was denied that the accident had taken place on account of negligence on the part of respondent driver. It was contended that the bus was being driven at a normal speed. The bus was over-loaded when it left the bus stand at Delhi. When the bus reached near the Nangloi Bus Stand, it took a turn towards left for going to Najafgarh. The bus had stopped after taking the turn. Some passengers started getting down from the bus while a few others tried to board the bus. The petitioner who was carrying two heavy bags of vegetables on his shoulders tried to board the bus but he fell down by the push of the passengers, who were getting down from the bus, and he received injuries. It was further alleged that the driver of the bus got down from the bus. It was contended that the said injured person admitted his fault in the presence of passengers including Shri Mool Chand. It was alleged that the bus was stationary when the injured person fell down from the bus. All allegations relating to rash and negligent driving of the bus on the part of respondent driver were denied.

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the claimant was a Government employee and covered by the CGHS facilities, therefore, he should not have been awarded compensation on account of medical treatment. He also submits that this is a case of contributory negligence which has not been appreciated by the Tribunal.