FAO No. 1206 of 1992 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1206 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.3.2010 The State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Kashmiri Lal and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Nidhi Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal before this court impugning the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), whereby on account of injuries suffered by respondent no. 1 a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded as compensation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 2.3.1989, when Kashmiri Lal was in the process of crossing the road near TV Studio, Jalandhar City, a bus bearing No. PUQ-3761, driven by Bachan Singh rashly and negligently came at very high speed and struck against him. Due to the impact, his legs were crushed and he remained in the hospital for about 1½ month. Thereafter, the petition was filed for claim before the Tribunal on 16.2.1990, which was allowed vide impugned award. Considering the fact that accident in the present case took place on 2.3.1989 in which respondent no. 1 suffered injuries and on account of that he remained in hospital for about 1½ month, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- in total. The State had sought to raise plea that the claim petition was belated and further that sufficient evidence was not led by the claimant to show the negligence of the driver and the amount spent on treatment. As far as the delay in filing of claim petition is concerned, the issue is no more res integra as it has been opined by Hon'ble the Surpeme Court that after the deletion of Section 166 (3) of the 1988 Act, there is no limitation for filing a claim petition and the principle applies for the accident which occurred when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force. In any eventuality, in the present case, the claim petition was filed even when the limitation could be condoned as per the provisions applicable at the time of filing of the claim petition. FAO No. 1206 of 1992 -2- In so far as negligence of the driver of the vehicle is concerned, nothing was produced on record by the appellants to show that the driver was not negligent rather as per the case set up by the claimant, the negligence of the driver was proved beyond doubt. The plea of the driver that on the G.T. Road, he was driving the bus at the speed of 10 K. M. was difficult to believe. As regards the amount of compensation, it was claimed that respondent no. 1 was remained in hospital for about 1½ month because of fractures suffered by him and he could not work for that period and there was loss of income as he was working as a painter. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation on estimation basis which at this late stage cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 17.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge