STATE OF HARYANA Vs. K L PARICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal points raised in this appeal and the cross objections being common i.e. whether the accident was caused due to any negligence on the part of the Motor-cyclist and whether the quantum of compensation has been rightly worked out by the Tribunal, hence the appeal and cross objections are taken up together and disposed.

(2.) Facts which are relevant for determining the above points are that the respondent Mr.Krishan Lal Pasricha was going on his motor cycle on 21st April,1977 at about 3.20 p.m. He was on his right of the road. He was going on Mall Road and was proceeding towards I.S.B.T. Hardly had he reached near the crossing of Mall Road-Bhambri Road and was about to cross the junction of Princess Road-Mall Road, when a bus belonging to the appellant bearing No.HYA-1630 driven by Shri Ram Chander in rash and negligent manner at a fast speed came and hit the motor- cycle of Mr.Pasricha. As a result of this accident Mr.K.L.Pasricha as well as his pillion rider fell down. Mr.Pasricha on account of this impact received fracture of nose, fracture of right clavicle, fracture of both bones of the right leg at two places beside head injury and injuries on other part of his body. He was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he remained indoor patient and thereafter got the treatment at General Hospital, Chandigarh. His injuries were declared as permanent disability. His leg was shortened by three to four inches. He suffered financial loss as well in the form of loss of salary, incentive, bonus, future benefits beside pain and suffering. He incurred heavy expenditure on medical treatment, conveyance and special diet. He thus claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) vide impugned award dated 4th April, 1983 awarded compensation of Rs.3,11,640.00 .

(3.) The State of Haryana appellant herein felt aggrieved with this award primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erroneously concluded that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus only. From the testimony of witnesses and in particular PW-1 & PW-2 read with the testimony of PW-6 and the mechanical examination report it is apparent that it was a case of contributory negligence. Moreover, the compensation awarded is on the higher side.