HARBANS LAL BAHL Vs. M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the appeal by Harbans Lal Bahl against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 18-1-73 in which a sum of Rs. 3,400.00 was awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The accident took place on 25-8-67. The appellant had claimed Rs. 40,000-as the compensation. The contention of the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and inadequate. There is a cross objection filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, challenging their liability. The appellant was working as a Section Officer in the University Grants Commission. After finishing his duty he was returning home on his scooter No. DLW 2432. After entering Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg he was going towards Delhi Gate for crossing over to tire other side of the road by an opening in from of Link House. There is a road divide dividing Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg into two parts. When he was turning to his right a DTU bus No. DLP 706 came from behind in high speed and hit the scooter from behind. The bus dragged the scooter for some distance. When it stopped half the part of the scooter m underneath the bus, between the two front wheels. The defence of the M.C.D. was that when that bus was going towards Delhi Gate from Bahadur Shah Zofar Marg, the scooter emerged suddenly from the left side lane coming from University Grants Commission. He Scooter it is stated was being driven reckless and hit the bus. The injuries sustained by the appellant were caused on account of bis Id from the scooter on the hard surface The MCD therefore denied its liability. The appellant examined a number of witnesses, including some eye witnesses. The Police had taken a photograph of the accident which is exhibited as PW 8/1. Mechanical inspection of the Scooter as well as the bus was done by PW 6 Laxman Singh and the report is also exhibited. On the appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded the following finding ;

(2.) The learned counsel for the MCD submitted that the bus w;as not at fault. According to him the accident took place on the crossing of the lane coming from the University Grants Commission and Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. On the basis of the site plan of the accident be has tried to submit that it was the scooter which struck against the bus resulting in the accident. The submissions of the counsel are not borne out by the evidence on record. The site plan clearly shows that the appellant hadaheady entered Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and bad proceeded about 20 ft on the main road for reaching the crossing for turning to right. The photographs further make it clear that the scooter was on the right side of the bus near The crossing and the scooter was ahead of the bus. The picture further shows that after hitting the scooter, the scooter had come between the front wheels of the bus. The submission is, therefore, rejected. After going through the evidence on record, I hold that the Tribunal has correctly recorded the finding that it was the M.C.D. bus which rashly and negligently caused the accident and was responsible for the injuries suffered by the appellant. The cross objections of the MCD are therefore rejected.

(3.) We may now turn to the submissions made by the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The appellant had produced some medical record. The record was brought by Mr. V.R. Bhatia, PW 14. It is stated in the said record that the appellant sustained traumatic rupture of small bowel as a result of the accident-He was operated upon and remained in the hospital from 25-8-67 to 14-9-67. Dr. S.R. Nagarkatti PW 11 stated that after some days the appellant had again gone to the hospital for the urinary tract infection. The Tribunal was quite right in holding that the injuries suffered by him got cured after the treatment and they had not left any adverse effect on his health or no damage was caused of any permanent nature. The appellant was 55 years old at the time of the accident-The Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 3,400.00 would be a just compensation towards the pain and suffering and other items of special damage such as nourishment expenses, conveyance and medicines. The claim of the appellant for Rs. 40,000.00 as compensation is highly exaggerated. However, the figure of Rs. 3,000.00towards general damage awarded by the Tribunal is also substantially low-Considering the fact that the appellant had to undergo abdomenal operation and was in hospital for 20 days, it must be assumed that he must have undergone a great pain and agony. I would therefore, raise the general damages to Rs. 6,000.00. The Tribunal was quite right in awarding Rs. 400.00 towards special damages as no concrete evidence was put forth. I would not, therefore, disturb that finding. The appellant is therefore entitled to Rs. 6,400.00 as compensation. He would also be entitled to a simple interest at 6 per cent from March, 1970 till payment.