M K CHAUHAN Vs. COSMO FERRITES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner, who was injured in an accident, when his car No. HP-03-1782 met with an accident with a Mini Bus (Swaraj Majda) No. HP-15-2542, near Sadhupul. The appellant, at that time, was serving as a Colonel with the Indian Army.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the respondents. The learned Tribunal settled eight issues. Two crucial issues related to the fact as to whether the accident took place because of rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Satpal and the amount of compensation to which the petitioner was entitled to. On the first issue, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred because of the fault of the bus driver. On the second issue with respect to the quantum of compensation payable, the Tribunal on the basis of medical certificate Ext.PW1/A issued by the Board of Doctors at the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla holding that he had suffered 15% permanent disability due to post traumatic stiffness of cervical spine and left knee joint, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the award amount was deposited. On the medical expenditure, incurred by the petitioner Ext.P2/1 to Ext.P-2/137, the learned Tribunal holds that it is not possible to segregate this amount and the expenditure incurred at Batra Hospital for undergoing angiography etc. was not relatable to the accident. This finding was rendered by the Tribunal on the basis that the appellant was suffering from diabetes (Type-II) and hypertension, which were not relatable to the accident. The loss was assessed at Rs. 54,000/- per annum. Multiplier of eight was applied for calculating compensation to be awarded.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the accident infact occurred and that this was relatable to the wrongful acts of respondent No.2 who was driving the vehicle for and on behalf of respondent No.1. So far as the findings of negligence are concerned, those cannot be varied and set aside for the reason that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence in detail and arrived at this conclusion.