SURESH CHANDRA SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. K. Singh, J. This appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura, dated 23-12-1976, awarding a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the appellant as compensation for the injuries received by him.

(2.) SURESH Chandra Saxena appellant aged about 40 years, was walking on the patri of the road in the city of Mathura near the State Bank of India an 6-12-1976, a military vehicle belonging to 205 Provost Unit, Mathura, of which the Union of India was the owner knocked him down from behind and dragged him as a result of which he received serious injuries. His both sides femur bones were fractured, left collar (clavicle) bone was fractured. Nasal bone and ribs of the left side was also fractured. In addition to that he received number of multiple bruises on his face, forehead, both hands, knees and his back. Immediately after the accident he was rushed to the hospital where he remained confined for 38 days and a number of doctors attended to him. He was operated upon and a rod was planted in his femur bones. Even after his discharge from the hospital he was confined to bed for a period of 3 months. The appellant filed claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries. The Union of India and the Officer Commanding of the Unit both filed joint written statement and contested the proceedings. In their written statement they admitted that the accident had occurred with the military vehicle. They pleaded that there was defect in the vehicle, as its foot-brake was not working, the Unit fitter repaired the vehicle and he had taken the same on the road for testing the brakes. While the vehicle was moving on the road the driver found another vehicle on its left side and applied brake but the vehicle could not stop and it knocked down the appellant, Before knocking down the appellant, the driver of the vehicle had been hooting its horn but the appellant did not move away instead he kept on looking towards the vehicle as such he was also guilty of contributory negligence. It was further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant was imaginary and excessive.

(3.) IN his claim petition the appellant had claimed damages in the following manner:- 1. General damages for disability claimed above : Rs. 50,000/ -. 2. General damages for pains : Rs. 10,000/ -. 3. Damages for five fractures: Rs. 30,000/ -. 4. Damages of the clothes involved in the accident : Rs. 1,100/ -. 5. Cost of attendance by all including brother : Rs. 40,000/ -.