IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 344 of 1991 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 Mewa Singh. ....... Appellant through Proxy counsel for Shri Sachin Mittal, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is an appeal directed against award dated 7.12.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 11 of 1990. The appellant sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 28.9.1989. He preferred a claim petition for grant of compensation. After appraisal of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of fifty per cent contributory negligence in causing the accident as he had attempted to board a moving bus. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal held the F.A.O. No.344 of 1991 -2- .... appellant entitled to a sum of Rs.8000/- on account of expenses incurred for his treatment, whereas a sum of Rs.10000/- was held appropriate for pain and suffering. However, in view of the contributory negligence, he was awarded a sum of Rs.9000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence does not warrant any interference. The F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the appellant immediately after the accident and he himself narrated to the police that the bus was moving when the appellant was trying to board. A person who attempts to board a moving bus is obviously at fault if he suffers any injury in the process. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal qua the issue of negligence is upheld. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, Rs.8000/- seem to be just and appropriate considering the evidence on record. PW3-Dr.Vijay Gupta had stated that the appellant was admitted with fracture of right femur at his nursing home and he had charged Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- from him which did not include the medicine charges. He also stated that x-ray charges were separately taken from the appellant. In view of this, the amount of Rs.8000/- as assessed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable. Similarly, the amount of Rs.10,000/- allowed by the Tribunal F.A.O. No.344 of 1991 -3- .... on account of pain and suffering is just and adequate keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any infirmity in the impugned award. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. December 11,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge