SONARAM Vs. JAIPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 91 of 1977 (Smt. Kiran Devi v. Jaiprakash) also.

(2.) These two appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, (for short, hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') dt. 17-3-1977 in Claim Case No. 29 of 1974.

(3.) Jaiprakash alias Jainarayan, respondent No. 1 filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, hereinafter called 'the Act') of an amount of Rs. 21,300/-, impleading appellant Sonaram; the Insurance Company and Kiran Devi as the parties. According to this application, on 4-4-1970 at 7.00a.m. the driver of tempo No. MPC 928 was driving the tempo rashly and negligently in a high speed and on the wrong side, while the applicant on his bicycle was going from Patankar market towards the High Court on his left side. When he reached the crossing of Lohia Bazar, the said driver hit him with the vehicle and due to this accident, he suffered several injuries. Consequently, he was admitted in the J. A. Hospital, Gwalior. According to him, the thigh bone of his left leg was broken and he was admitted on 4-4-1970 in the hospital and, after treatment, was discharged on 13-5-1980. But the thigh bone did not unite and he had to re-enter the hospital on 10-7-1970 and till the date of filing of this application he was an indoor patient. According to the claimant, his left leg has not only become weak for the life but has also become deformed. Due to this accident, he could not appear in the annual examination of IXth class in which he was reading. Due to this injury and permanent deformity, he had to leave his studies continuously for two years. He claimed Rs. 550/- as expenses incurred for medicines; Rs. 500/- for fruits and milk, etc.; he demanded Rs. 10,000/- as claim for mental torture resulting from the injury and Rs. 10,0007- for the physical injury. He further demanded Rs. 250/- as loss for the bicycle. This claim application was contested by the appellant; the driver of the tempo (who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal); the Insurance Company and Smt. Kiran Devi. 3A. Before the Tribunal, the claimant-respondent No. 1 examined himself as A.W. 4 and also examined Brij Bihari Gupta (A.W. 1); Sitaram (A.W. 2) and Dr. D. C. Gupta (A.W. 3). Brijbihari Gupta (A.W. 1) was a student, who was also with the claimant-respondent No. 1 on the bicycle. He has described the impact of the tempo upon the bicycle and says that he became unconscious and the claimant Jaiprakash suffered injuries. Sitaram (A.W. 2) is father of the claimant, he has proved the amounts spent by him during the confinement of Jaiprakash. Sitaram (A.W. 2) and Brijbihari Gupta (A.W. 1) have, in material particulars, corroborated the testimony of the claimant Jaiprakash. The appellant and respondent Kiran Devi also examined Bhagwati Prasad Singhal (NAW 1); Durga Prasad (NAW 2); Ramkishan (NAW 3); Sonaram (NAW 4) and G. K. Sharma (NAW 5). The appellant himself took the witness box. From the side of the claimant-respondent No. 1, before the Tribunal several X-ray plates to prove the fracture of his thigh bone were produced in evidence, but the doctor, who treated his fracture, could not be examined before the tribunal.