IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:20.04.2026 KARNAIL SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for appellant.

Mr. Abhinav Mahant, Asst. A.G., Haryana.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellant-claimant is aggrieved by award dated 30.11.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which it was held that accident dated 01.07.1998 was the result of contributory rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.HR-391924 by respondent No.3 and scooter bearing registration No.HNH 14405 being driven driven by appellant-claimant.

2. While deciding issue No.1, learned Tribunal had held that both appellant-claimant as well as respondent No.3 had contributed in causing the accident and are equally responsible for the same. Accordingly, 50% amount of total compensation was ordered to be paid to the appellant-claimant.

3. Appellant-claimant was held entitled to following compensation:-

Compensation on Rs.2,000/-

account of transportation charges Compensation for loss of Rs.4,500/-

salary during the period he remained admitted in the hospitals Compensation for pain Rs.10,000/-

and suffering, special diet and attendants Total Rs.1,18,500/-

4. Appellant-claimant is not represented by any counsel. It is worth noticing that appellant-claimant had filed present appeal in 2001 and thereafter records of appeal were not available as same got burnt in a fire incident. Accordingly grounds of appeal and award passed by Court alone were available with this Court. Fresh notices were issued to appellant- claimant. However, the notices issued to the appellant-claimant received back with the report ‘incorrect/incomplete address’ and therefore appellant- claimant could not be served. Learned counsel for respondent has fairly stated that fresh/correct address of appellant-claimant is not available with them also. However, lower Court record is available for perusal of this Court.

5. Appellant-claimant has challenged finding of the learned Tribunal on two grounds. Appellant-claimant has challenged the finding of contributory negligence on issue No.1 as well as quantum of compensation of Rs.1,18,500/- and has prayed that compensation be enhanced.

6. As far as findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is concerned, I do not find any error in the same. Learned Tribunal has duly appreciated evidence of appellant-claimant as well as that of driver and conductor of offending bus who had appeared as RW1 and RW2.

7. It was the case of appellant-claimant that on 01.07.1998 at about 06:30 a.m., he was going from his house situated in Shanti Nagar, Hisar to Arcee Ispat Limited, Talwandi on his scooter bearing registration No.HNH/4405 and when appellant-claimant reached near the factory, he turned towards his right to go into the factory. In the meanwhile, offending bus came from opposite side, being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.3, had hit back of his scooter without blowing horn. On the other hand, driver and conductor of the offending bus, while appearing as RW1 and RW2, stated that bus was being driven in moderate speed and in careful manner. The canter was coming from opposite side, whereas scooter of appellant-claimant was driven rashly and negligently behind the canter. The driver of canter slowed down the speed of canter and the scooterist got puzzled and lost control over scooter to avoid accident with canter. Appellant-claimant turned his scooter towards the right side, ignoring the bus coming from front side. Both RW1 and RW2 had stated that RW1 had taken bus on the kutcha portion to save the scooterist but the scooterist struck this scooter against the bus.

8. Admittedly, it was appellant-claimant who took tur