BHAGWAN SINGH NAINTA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Solan. The appellant in F.A.O. No. 79/85 is the claimant while the appellant in F.A.O. No. 170/86 are the owners of the bus involved in the accident.

(2.) THE accident occurred on 1.11.1983 when the appellant/claimant, who was Sub Divisional Magistrate, was proceeding in his Jeep from Solan to Shimla on official duty. The bus owned by the Punjab Roadways which was coming from the opposite side, dashed against the Jeep and dragged it to some distance about 25 to 30 metres. It is in the evidence that the bus was on the wrong side of the road when it dashed against the Jeep. Besides causing damage to the Jeep, the accident resulted in serious injuries to the claimant. He suffered grievous injuries in his head and leg. He got admitted in the Hospital at P.G.I., Chandigarh on 1.11.1983 and he stayed in the Hospital till 16.12.1983 at that time.

(3.) PW 2 is the Inspector Vigilance, Anti corruption Unit, Solan. He was at that time posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kandaghat. His evidence is only with regard to the matters which took place after the accident. PW 3 is the Head Clerk in the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. He was travelling alongwith the claimant in the same jeep. He was sitting in the Jeep in the rear side. He has spoken about the way in which the bus came on the wrong side being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Feep. PW 4 was the driver of the Jeep at that time. He has also spoken about the way in which the accident took place. PW 5 is the doctor who was Medical Officer, Incharge of Civil Hospital, Kandaghat. He has deposed that claimant was brought to him on 1.11.1983 in very serious condition and he was having injuries in his body besides fracture of patella. After taking X Ray and giving first aid, he referred the claimant to P.G.I., Chandigarh. PW 6 is the Senior Resident Doctor in the department of Orthopaedics, P.G.I., Chandigarh. He has deposed that the claimant was treated at P.G.L, Chandigarh till 16.12.1983 from 1.11.1983. He has supported the version of the claimant and stated that the claimant was disabled to the extent of 30% loss of function of the right side of lower limb. He has stated that the disability is not likely to be cured during the life time of the claimant and it is likely to go along the life of the claimant. He has spoken of the certificate issued by him marked as Ext. P 1 and Ext. PW 6/A.