MANGALAJI SURAJI Vs. GOVINDLAL SAMALDAS SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants of this appeal were proceeded against by the respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ahmeda- bad for obtaining an award of Rs. 20 0 as compensation for the inju- ries received by him during the course of an accident which occurred on 25 July 1970 at about 6.00 p.m. near Gandhi Bridge traffic circle on the Wadaj side road. The learned Judge of the Tribunal having awarded the amount of Rs. 15 100 as total compensation against the present appellants this appeal is preferred by them. The respondent has however preferred cross-objections claiming the full amount of Rs. 20,000.00-

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent is a clerk of advo- cates working in High Court. on 25th July 1970 after the court hours at about 6.00 p.m. he was returning home and going to his house on his scooter towards the Wadaj side. At that time he came from the Gandhi Bridge side took a turn towards the Wadaj road near the Income-tax office and then entered the Wadaj road. After he went a little ahead in the middle of the road on his scooter a motor-truck bearing no. G.T.D. 3499 which was driven by the first appellant was found coming from the opposite side. At that time the traffic police had closed the clearance of the side from which the motor-truck was coming and therefore there was some traffic jam near the traffic point on the side from which the motor- truck was coming. However soon after the respondent entered the Wadaj road and as he was passing by the middle line of the road the traffic clearance was given with the result that the vehicles which were standing stationary on the road on the right hand side of the respondent started moving. The case of the respondent is that by this time the appellant No. 1 who was driving the above referred truck tried to overtake some rickshaws which were ahead of that truck. In the process the right hand side of the truck is said to have collided against the scooter which was driven by the respondent. The respondent says that on account of this inpact he lost control over the scooter The head of the respondent is said to have dashed against the motor truck and thereafter he was thrown away on the ground. His scooter also was found lying a few feet away from the motor truck. Immediately after this accident the traffic police came there and chalked out the limits within which the two vehicles were found. The vehicles were thereafter allowed to 80 and the panchnama of the place of the incident was completed at 8.00 p.m. on that very day.

(3.) After the accident the respondent was taken to V.S. Hospital where he was treated by Dr. Bharatkumar Jethalal Damani whose deposition appears at ex. 31. The doctor found that there was a depressed fracture of the skull of the respondent. The respondent was therefore operated upon on 20th July 1970 During the course of the operation it was found that one of the pieces of the skull bone was depressed and required to be removed. There were signs of some damage to the brain of the respondent. Ultimately the respondent was discharged from the hospital on 11.8.70. The doctor says in his deposition that the respondent is left with some defect in the bone of his skull and therefore there are some future chances of the respondent developing epilepsy. He has further deposed that the respondent is not in a position to take any further risk of brain injury. Evidence shows that even after the respondent was discharged as an indoor patient of the hospital he was required to be treated as an outdoor patient for some time.