IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1002 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2010 Ravinder Singh ....Appellant versus Sumer Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate, for the New India Assurance Company Limited. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the driver of the bus No.HR-12-3315, who on the date of the accident was driving the bus when the alleged accident taken place colliding with the truck No.DL- IG-3266. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in giving findings that both the drivers of the respective vehicles of Haryana Roadways Bus as well as the driver of the truck were negligent in their driving. The finding of contributory negligence resulted in abatement of compensation to an extent of 50%. Dissatisfied with this finding of contributory negligence, present appeal has been preferred contending that once the FIR has been registered against the driver of the truck only, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the principle of contributory negligence. The FAO No.1002 of 1997 (O&M) - 2 - Tribunal has considered the fact that the FIR had been lodged by the police on some information by a member of public and not at the instance of any person travelling in the vehicle. The Tribunal also considered the fact that the accident had taken place on a wide road with good visibility on both sides and a passenger in the bus PW15 had given evidence that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident, since they were driving the vehicles rashly. The evidence of the conductor and driver of the bus imputing negligence on the driver of the truck was found to be interested and hence discarded. I am convinced that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and there is no reason to take a different view. 2. As regards the quantum, all the heads of claim have been considered, except for the fact that a prolonged treatment at the hospital as in-patient and out-patient over 10 months with surgeries on two occasions have not been dealt with properly for the claim for pain and suffering. I shall provide for Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering additionally. 3. Since I retain the finding of contributory negligence, the increase would mean an additional amount of 12,500/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till date of payment and recoverable against the insurer of the truck viz. the New India Assurance Company. 4. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.11.2010 sanjeev