S.P. JAISWAL Vs. U.O.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 72 of 1988 and 350 of 1991. The facts of the case have been taken from LPA No. 72 of 1988.

(2.) CAR No. HRD 5123 belonging to Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, wife of the appellant, (and the claimant in the connected appeal) was involved in an accident with Bus No. CHW 135 driven by Ramesh Chander, on January 9,1980, at about 8.00 AM, when the car was coming from the side of Sector 33, Chandigarh, and going towards Sector 27. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the traffic light was green for going through and when the car was almost three fourth through the crossing of Sectors 20 and 30, the bus driven, very rashly and at a very high speed by its driver, struck the car on the front side, with the result that the car turning towards its left made a complete about-turn, climbed the traffic island and smashed into the light pole. The averments further show that the appellant sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident leading to the fracture of two ribs, damage to the right kidney, head injury and injuries to the spine, lumber and cervical region, resulting in the acute pain all the times. It has been averred that the appellant remained admitted in the PGI from January 9,1980 to January 19,1980, and thereafter, he received treatment at Chandigarh. Nilokheri, Karnal, and Delhi. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards the damage sustained by the Car was claimed by Mrs. Meera Jaiswal.

(3.) WHILE recording its finding on issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself. The Tribunal also went into the evidence of the appellant and found that it could not be relied upon. The Tribunal, however, on issue No. 2 made a formal assessment of the compensation that would have been payable to the appellant but in view of the finding on issue No. 1, the claim application was dismissed. In first appeal before this Court, the findings recorded by the Tribunal were re-affirmed with the result that the present Letters Patent Appeal is before us.