M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises questions relating to assessment of non-pecuniary damages in cases such as loss of both eyes and severe head injury resulting in total loss of mental faculties. To-day the appellant is mentally unsound.

( 2 ) THE accident occurred in Kakinada town on 4-4-1979 at about 1. 00 p. m. when the aprellant who was going on a bicycle was knocked down by the jeep belonging to the District Collector s office. The appellant was then aged 25 years. He was married and his wife, two young daughters and a son are dependent on him. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has held that negligence on the part of the jeep driver was not established and dismissed the claim totally. On quantum, it held that even if there should be an award, it should be Rs. 25,000/- for the permanent disability (on the basis of monthly earnings of Rs. 200/-) and Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and for pain, suffering etc. in all, Rs. 30,000/ -. The claimant has preferred this appeal. Both findings are attacked by his learned counsel Sri Raj Reddi, advocate representing Sri T. Bali Reddi while, on the other hand, Miss V. Lakshmi Devi the learned Government Pleader tried to support the findings.

( 3 ) ON the question of negligence, the claimant examined, apart from his mother-in-law (P. W. 2) near whose house the accident occurred, three others namely P. W. I (brother-in-laws) P. W. 3 (a rickshaw puller at the busstand) and P. W. 4 (another eye witness ). The Tribunal doubted the presence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and rejected their evidence. I am not basing my conclusions on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 but I am basing mainly on the evidence of P. W. 2 and R. W. 1 (the driver), the admissions in the Counter, the facts emanating from the FIR (Ex. B-1) and other circumstances. Admittedly, the cyclist started from his mother-in-law s) (P. W. 2 s) house on the right side of the road and then crossed the road and proceeded from south to north. The jeep was coming from the opposite direction from north to south. The evidence of P. W. 2 and, in fact, the suggestions to other p. Ws. by the respondent s counsel in the cross-examination, reveal clearly that, even according to the respondent, the appellant was knocked down and fell from the cycle in front of the gate of Chaganti Lakshmi s house, on the left side of the road. Coupled with this is the admission in the counter that the jeep crossed some school children who were going in front of the jeep just before the accident. These two important circumstances were unfortunately omitted by the Tribunal from consideration. Assuming the absence of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 at the scene, there is no justification for rejecting P. W. 2 s evidence, the accident having occurred so soon after the appellant got up on the cycle and left P. W. 2 s house, all within a few yards, when the jeep knocked him down. The Tribunal repeatedly raised doubts as to why or how the jeep could have moved to its right. This doubt is clearly answered by the above two circumstances. The other important circumstances are that there is no other evidence except that of the driver, R. W. 1, that the victim dashed against some pedestrians in his front and came to his right side. In fact, there is no witness for respondent except the interested evidence of r. W. 1. It is admitted in the statement of R. W. 1 before the police (see ex. B-l) that in the jeep, there was a government employee, R. Satyanarayana, travelling. He was not examined. When the accident occurred at about 12. 30 p. m. or 1. 00 p. m. there is no reason as to why, in a big town like Kakinada, R. W. 1 should have gone to the police station only at

( 4 ) 30 p. m. when the case was registered unless it be that, R. W. 1 did not take the victim to the hospital and had fled from the scene. This is clear from the evidence of P. W. 2 the mother-in-law and of P. W. 5 the wife of the victim. The medical evidence does not also speak to R. W. 1 bringing the victim to the hospital

Click Here to Read the rest of this document