The main legal point established is the liability of the bus driver under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for driving in a rash and negligent manner, leading to the accident and the award of compensation for damages and injuries.

R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of two FAOs No. 263 of 1994 titled Sat Parkash @ Sat Pal v. Vishnu Dutt and another, and No. 320 of 1994 titled Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar v. Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal and another, as both the appeals have arisen from the award dated 1.10.1993 passed by Motor Accident Tribunal, Ambala which awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation to Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal injured.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.3.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. the appellant was coming from Chandigarh to village Bhanu on his tractor trolley bearing registration No. HRX 5612 and the tractor trolley was being driven by him on extreme left side of the road at a very slow speed. When he reached near village Ramgarh at about 5.30 p.m., a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-02/0306 came from behind. The driver of the bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and he struck the bus against the tractor trolley of the appellant from behind without giving any indication. Due to the collision the appellant fell down from the tractor and came under the bus and received multiple injuries.

After getting first aid from a private hospital at Ramgarh the appellant was removed to PGI, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for 12 days and was operated upon. As a result of the injuries, fingers and thumb of left foot i.e. major part of the left foot of the appellant had been amputated. The tractor trolley was also badly damaged. The appellant also claimed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by way of damages to the tractor trolley and Rs. 3 lakh on account of injuries suffered by him.

3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents, who filed separate written statements. The factum of accident was admitted but it was denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Rather, it was stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. it was pleaded that when the bus in question reached near village Ramgarh, tractor was going in front of the bus in the same direction. However, a truck came from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner and the bus driver had to apply sudden brakes. The bus could not be driven to katcha portion on the left side as there was 50 feet deep ditch.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the impugned accident was caused by respondent No. 1 by driving the offending vehicle rashly and/or negligently ? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to any amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom ? OPP

3. Relief."

5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of proceedings issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Issue No. 2 was partly decided in favour of the appellant and he was awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. No. 3 was disposed of with the (sic).

6. Both the parties are not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal. The State has filed FAO No. 320 of 1994 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, while Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal has filed FAO No. 263 of 1994 on the plea that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and there is a scope of enhancement.

7. I have heard Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate on behalf of the claimant/appellant, Mr. Sultan Singh, AAG, Haryana on behalf of Haryana Roadways and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

8. The Haryana Roadways has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1. Otherwise also, I find the reasoning given by the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the injured/appellant just and cogent. It is the case of the claimant/appellant