SWATANTRA KUMAR LAMBA Vs. SHEILA DIDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 509 of 1981, No. 2 of 1982 and No. 33 of 1982, as all of them are directed against an award dated 28-5-1981 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal).

(2.) AN accident took place on January 22, 1979 at about 1.15 p m. at Chandigarh, near M.L.A. Flats, on the road dividing Sectors 3 and 6, Arun Nehra, Advocate, the appellant in F.A.O. No. 33 of 1982 was driving Scooter No. CHO-4664. Mrs. Sheila Didi, Bar-at-law, was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. Arun Nehra turned towards the M.L.A. flats after giving indication with his hand from a distance. While approaching the turning he had slowed down the speed of the scooter, Car No. CH-4210 owned by Swatantra Kumar Lamba, the appellant in F.A.O. No. 2 of 1982 and driven by Rajinder Kumar respondent No. 2 therein, came from the opposite direction at a rash and negligent speed and hit the scooter. Arun Nehra with Mrs. Sheila Didi were thrown off the road because of the impact of the car on the scooter. The scooter was dragged for some distance by the car when because of application of brakes it came to a halt. No horn was blown by the driver of the car. He disregarded the traffic on the road. As a result of the accident, Arun Nehra and Sheila Didi received multiple serious injuries. The scooter of Mr. Nehra was also damaged. Both of them filed claim applications before the learned Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for short 'the Act') wherein they claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- each as compensation for mental and physical pain, past, present and future expenses, permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earning capacity and loss of income Besides, Arun Nehra claimed compensation for damaged to the scooter. He stated that on the day of the accident, he started from the High Court at lunch time and was going to leave Mrs. Sheila Didi at her residence in M.L.A. Flats, in Sector 3.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues which were common in both the claim applications: