KAILASH CHAND JAIN Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAILASH Chand the appellant was coming from the side of Gagret on 3rd April 1985, and at about 6. 30 p. m. on his motor-cycle when he reached in the area of village Saleran, he was run over by the front tyre of Bus bearing registration No. PJU-8651 being driven by its driver Gurdip Singh-respondent No. 1. He was, thereafter, removed to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where his right leg was amputated in order to save his life. The appellant, thereafter filed a claim petition seeking compensation on the ground that the bus in question had been driven rashly and negligently by its driver and this had led to the accident. The applicant also claimed that at the time of the accident, his income had been Rs. 3,000.00 p. m. and that he had spent a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 on his medical treatment and, accordingly, claimed compensation of Rs. three lacs.

(2.) ON notice, the respondents filed their written statements and it was pleaded therein that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the applicant who was driving motor cycle at a very high speed.

(3.) TO support his claim, the applicant produced PW-1 Dr. Rachhpal Singh, Orthopaedic Specialist, who stated that the applicant had been admitted in. the Emergency department of Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on 3rd April, 1985 at 7. 20 p. m. and after giving supportive treatment, he had been operated upon at 10 p. m. the same night and his right leg above the knee joint had been amputated which had led to 85% permanent disability. He further stated that the applicant had been discharged from the hospital on 25th April, 1985 but was required to visit the hospital subsequently for follow up treatment. The Doctor also stated that he had advised the applicant to get an artificial limb from Jaipur or from Pune. The Tribunal also relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Kailash Chand himself and on PW-3 Chaman Lal, to come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by Gurdip Singh the bus driver. The Tribunal then went on to the question of compensation and came to the conclusion that there had been no decrease in the income in the hands of the applicant after this accident, but that as he had suffered disability to the extent of 85% on account of the accident, he was entitled to Rs. 20,000.00 for physical disability, Rs. 5,000.00 towards medical treatment and Rs. 5,000/towards pain and suffering that he had suffered making a total sum of Rs. 30,000/ -. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed claiming a higher compensation.