Y S KUMAR Vs. KULDIP SINGH JASPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal by Y. S. Kumar and General Insurance Society Limited against kuldip Singh Jaspal. It is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Punjab dated December 30, 1967 granting the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 8,700 for the injury of the right ankle suffered by him consequent upon negligent driving of motor-cycle by the first appellant. Facts leading to the appeal are as under:--

(2.) THE respondent is Excise and Taxation Officer. The accident occurred at 10-45 a. m. on January 23, 1966. On that date, the respondent was working at Jullundur. He was proceeding on a cycle along the G. T. Road from the side of District Courts towards Nehru Garden. He had to cross another road as he wanted to make purchases from some shop. Prior to the crossing of that road, he stopped his cycle along the margin of the metalled portion of the road, placed his left foot on the kacha portion of the road and the right on the paddle. Before he could look back to see if the road was clear and he could cross, the first appellant riding motorcycle no. PNA-8692 passed from behind at a high speed and struck his motorcycle against the right ankle of the respondent. The respondent fell down and became unconscious. He was picked up by Apa Jit Singh, Inspector of Excise and Taxation department B. R. Nair and some medical students. They carried him to the Civil hospital. The occurrence was seen by Apa Jit Singh and B. R. Nair, who at the relevant time happened to be walking along the road. His injuries were examined by Dr. Shingara Singh at 11-30 a. m. on that very day. He found fracture of the lower ends of the right tibia and fibula and a swelling on the ankle. He also noticed an abrasion on the right leg just above the right knee.

(3.) THE respondent made application claiming Rs. 25,000. The first appellant did not file any written statement. The insurance company, however, put in written statement and denied liability to meet the claim of the respondent. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:-