GURSHARAN SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was an Assistant Engineer, Class II in the Punjab State Electricity Board. He met with an accident with a Haryana Roadways bus on 25th March, 1972 at about 8 30 A.M. in front of the entrance of the Bus Stand, Chandigarh. He was going on a motorcycle when the bus of the Haryana Roadways struck against him He was about 30 years of age at the time of the accident and was drawing Rs. 760/- per month as salary. He claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 5,48 000/-on account of sustaining injuries in the accident. His claim application was, however, dismissed as being time barred, though it was found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal held that had the petition been filed in time, the appellant would have been entitled to recover Rs. 75,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(2.) THE claimant filed an appeal-F. A. O. No. 52 of 1977 in this Court. The learned Single Judge found that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay and held that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 1,25.000/- as compensation from the respondents along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i. e. 4th September, 1973. The learned Single Judge had awarded Rs. 1,25,000/-under the following heads :-

(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that the compensation should not be less than Rs. 3,75,000/-, inasmuch as for all times to come the appellant will almost remain on crutches His future chances in service have been affected. He cannot get married. There is permanent disability as far as the leg is concerned inasmuch as it has been shortened by 2-1/2". According to the learned counsel, the learned Single judge should have considered the above-mentioned aspects that future life and the future service career have been totally blasted and in real sense no amount of compensation in terms of money can compensae the loss that the appellant has suffered. The appellant referred to the medical report (Exhibit A. 1) in which it is mentioned that the appellant had undergone 12 operations out of which three were relatively minor operations. The injuries noted were :-