The Court held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the claim application, considering the severity of his injuries and the fact that he was admitted to the hospital for several months. The Court also held that the compensation awarded by the High Court was inadequate and enhanced it to include compensation for pain and suffering, loss of earning power, and the cost of an attendant.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. P. S. Bhalnagar has filed this appeal under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, D/- 7.04.1976, by which his appeal (F. A. O. No. 203 of 1972) was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated thus :

The appellant, who was posted as Chief Design Engineer of Bhakra and Beas Projects and B. R. Palta, the then General Manager of the Bhakra Control Board, were travelling in the Beas Project Car No. PNH-1424, which was proceeding from Nangal via Jullundur towards Talwara on 5.07.1967, when at about 4 P.M. the intersection of Jullundur by-pass G.T. Road and Hoshiarpur-Jullundur Road, there was collision between the said car and the Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNQ-906, which was proceeding towards Jullundur City from Jandu Singha and Bhakra. The car was driven by Sulakhan Singh and Kashmira Singh peon was sitting on the front seat while P. S. Bhatnagar and B. R. Palta were sitting on the rear seat. As a result of the accident all the occupants of the car sustained injuries. The bus was driven by Shankar Singh driver. Both P. S. Bhatnagar and B. R. Palta received serious injuries in the accident and had to be removed to the hospital. The appellant filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jullundur, on 23.11.1967, which was later on amended on 5.02.1968, claiming Rs. 9,55,000.00 as compensation from the respondents on account of expenses incurred by him on the medical treatment of the injuries sustained by him and the effects thereof. It was alleged in the application that he had sustained a fracture of left arm and injury to the head, as a result of which he was completely disabled for the rest of his life and that the accident had primarily occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by Shankar Singh. The respondents resisted the claim of the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues :-

"1. Is the claim application within time and if not, are there sufficient reasons to condone the delay?

2. Was the accident due to any negligent act of the driver of the car, or that of both drivers and with what effect ?

3. What should be the quantum of compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom?

4. Relief."

3. The parties led their evidence. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were answered in the negative while on Issue No. 3 the Tribunal held that the appellant could claim compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,000.00 only. As a result of the findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2, the claim of the appellant was dismissed.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal which, as earlier observed, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Hence the present appeal.

5. The first contention raised before us by Shri Suri, learned counsel for the appellants, was that the finding of the learned Single Judge on Issue No. 1 affirming that of the Tribanal that the appellant was unable to make out "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in making the claim application could not legally be sustained. According to the learned counsel, the physical disability suffered by the appellant was such which by itself was sufficient to condone the delay in filling the claim application. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the Single Judge accepted the explanation of delay up to 1.11.1967, and that those very circumstances continued to exit which prevented the appellant from filling the application later on with the result that even the period from 1.11.1967 to 28.11.1967, has also been satisfactorily explained by the appellant for not making the application. On the other, hand, the learned Advocate-General submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge was based on the appreciation of the entire evidence, and that such a finding could not legally be disturbed in appeal.

6. After giving our thoughtful