State of U.P. through Deputy Director of Animal v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari

also been challenged. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record including the impugned order. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the jeep driver, the claimant has produced P.W.4 Shiv Singh, who had given ocular account of the accident and the manner in which the accident in question occurred beside examining himself on the point. PW 4 has stated on oath that on the relevant date, he was going on his cycle. He saw the scooterist, who overtook him. Then he saw a jeep coming at a high speed and dashing against the scooter with the result the claimant, who was pillion rider was thrown out and sustained injuries. From the side of the opposite parties, Bharat Singh the driver of the jeep, D.W.1, as well as Sri S.C. Joshi, the Deputy Director, D.W.2, who was sitting in the jeep were examined. The learned Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence led by the opposite parties and found that the statements of the driver of the jeep and D.W.2 S.C. Joshi were conflicting and were not conformity with the stand taken in the written statement. D.W.2 S.C. Joshi went on saying that the scooter was coming from the opposite direction and one person was sitting as pillion rider. When the jeep cross the scooter, he heard a sound like “Khatak” and he asked the driver to stop the jeep. From the statement of the D.W.1 it comes out that the jeep was right hand driver and naturally the Deputy Director must have been sitting on the left side. The Khud was on the right hand side of the driver, therefore, D.W.2 could not have been in a position to have seen anything falling from the road. Statement of D.W.2 further shows that at first he could not say that he saw the scooterist. The hearing of sound like Khatak by D.W.1 and D.W.2 in their statements is indicative of the fact that the jeep collided against the scooter, otherwise there was question of hearing such a sound in normal course. Moreover, it may be mentioned that both D.W.1 and D.W.2 are the interested witness of the case. Considering the evidence of the witnesses produced by the opposite parties, namely D.W.1 and D.W.2, as compared to the statement of independent eye-witness P.W.4 Shiv Singh, the claimant’s version that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep appears to be more reliable. The learned Tribunal has discussed each and every aspect of the case in the impugned order. I do not see any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, in the claim petition the claimant has claimed compensation worth Rs. 60,000/- out of which Rs. 15,000/- were claimed towards medical expenses. He was admitted in the hospital from 25.10.1981 to

25.11.1981. He was again hospitalized from 16.1.1982 to 5.2.82. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the material on record found favour with the claimant to the extent that he must have spent Rs. 8,000/- towards medical expenses. In addition, the Tribunal found the claimant entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical suffering. The claim of the claimant towards other heads was turned down. Dr. R.P. Singh, P.W.5, has stated that the claimant suffered permanent disability of 20%, for which he had issued a certificate, Ext. 54. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case especially the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalization and treatment which the claimant had undergone coupled with the statement of doctor examined by the claimant, this amount of Rs. 18,000/- as compensation appears to be just and fair. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the quantum of compensation is excessive. Having gone through the entire material on record, I find no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. No infirmity or illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in holding that the driver of the jeep was alone responsible for the accident in question resulting into grievous injuries to the claimant. The award of compensation of Rs. 18,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum is just and fair. No other point was urged or argued before me. In the result, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award under appeal is upheld. No order as to costs. RCP (B.S.Verma, J.)