STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHAND KRISHAN HAZARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chand Krishan Hazari, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 26 of 1982, Chand Krishan Hazari v. State of Himachal Pradesh, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 29 of 1982, Indu Hazari v. State of Himachal Pradesh, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 30 of 1982 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Indu Hazari, F. A O. (MVA) No 34 of 1982, arise out of the same accident and the common award. The facts, evidence and the principles of law being common, they are being taken up for decision together by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that Chand Krishan Hazari, travelling by car No. DLK 2795 on 4 -7 -1970 at about 1 p.m. along with his wife Indu Hazari and other members of the family, left Manali for Delhi, met with an accident with truck No. HIM 3280, owned by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Public Works Department), coming from opposite direction, driven by Om Prakash, it collided with the right side of. the car. The collision was so serious that the car was pushed back .by about 15 feet. The result of the accident was that Chand Krishan Hazari got number of serious multiple fractures, besides number of other injuries, on his person. His wife, Indu Hazari, also sustained minor injuries. The injured were removed to a hospital at Manali where they got treatment for a few days and then they were taken to New Delhi where Chand Krishan Hazari was admitted as an indoor patient at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He remained admitted for many months and even after the treatment he complained of his inability to walk long distances and pains to himself due to these injuries.

(3.) The couple filed petitions for compensation against the respondents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and claimed Rs. 1,00,000 (Chand Krishan Hazari) and Rs 50,000 (Indu Hazari). These claims were resisted by the respondents and it was alleged that the accident was the result of the negligence of the car driver which was, in fact, being driven by Chand Krishan Hazari. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: "(1) Whether respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not liable for any negligent tortious acts of the respondent No. 5 ? OPR 1 to