VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SHOKAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral).-The appellant has made a grievance against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in his favour and awarding a sum of Rs. i2,270 as compensation. The grievance of the appellant is that. after coming to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered a permanent disability and after finding that the appellant had to be hospitalised for a long time and had suffered both physically, mentally and monetarily the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 which he had originally demanded.

(2.) The respondents have also filed cross-objection-, as, according to them, the appellant had not suffered any permanent disability and the Tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation for permanent disability.

(3.) I have gone with Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the 'appellant, .through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and on an assessment of evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident in which the appellant was involved was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 driver and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The short story is that on 30th of March 1968 at shout 6.30 p.m. while the appellant was travelling on the carrier of a bicycle which was being paddled by. one Anand Mohan (P.W. 6) he got injured as a result of an .accident that took place with Car No. DLF 8155 which was being driven rashly and negligently. The fact that this accident took place. and the injured was removed to the hospital in the same car by respondent No. 1 is not in dispute. All that to be considered by the court is as to whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The appellant as his own witness, Public Witness 6 Anand Mohan and Public Witness 4 Prem Kumar who is brother of the appellant have tendered evidence that respondent No, 1 ;it the time of the accident was driving the car rashly and negligently. Respondent No. 1, however. states that he was not driving rashly and negligently but admits that having suddenly found being faced with the cycle riders he did take a little turn towards the right. Now that apart, it is admitted that respondent No. 1 was prosecuted under section 338 Indian Penal Code . For rash and negligent driving in respect of this very incideat and be was convicted in that case. There is hardly any scope, therfore, for any other conclusion than the one suggested by the appellant that at the time of accident the car was being driven rashly and negligently. There is no evidence in support of the proposition that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.