K.R.Vyas, H.K.RATHOD - (1.) The appellant GSRTC has preferred this appeal under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 9.12.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) Baroda in MACP No.729 of 1981 whereby the Tribunal ordered the appellant and the present respondent no.2 to pay jointly and severally to the claimant -respondent no.1 Rs. 78,455.00 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. It may be stated that the claimant claimed Rs. 4,14,355.80. However, by pursis Ex. 15, he reduced the claim to Rs. 1,14,355.80. The claimant has also filed Cross Objections claiming Rs. 23000.00 not awarded by the Tribunal. The accident in question took place on 27.1.1980 near Manjalpur turning on National Highway No.8 in the City of Baroda when the respondent no.1 claimant was knocked down by ST bus no. GRS 7907 driven by respondent no.2 in a rash and negligent manner.
(2.) As per the say of the claimant in the claim petition, on 27.1.1988 at about 6.40 p.m., the claimant who was then residing at Manjalpur, Baroda, was returning home on a bicycle and when he was on N.H.W.No.8 at a slow speed and on correct side of the road and when he attempted to take turn on his right side in order to be on the road leading to village Manjalpur, respondent no.2 came driving the bus at an excessive and uncontrollable speed from behind and by rushing on the wrong side struck him down by its front part in such a way that he himself and his bicycle fell in between the front wheels and he sustained injuries on his hip and abdomen. The injury was very serious and it caused fracture of his pelvis bone and rupture of the urinary bladder as a result of which he was required to take treatment initially in the SSG Hospital, Baroda from 22.7.1980 to 8.10.1980 and then in the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad from 14.10.1980 to 20.11.1980 and yet he was not completed cured. As per the say of the claimant, during the course of treatment, a catheter was required to be placed in order to drain out urine from his bladder and he developed fisula at the root of his penis and urine started dribbling out of it. For the cure of fisula, he was required to remain in hospital and even after his discharge from there, he was not completely cured and the injury of rupture of urinary bladder made him completely impotent. He has claimed Rs. 1,10,000/- for the pain, shock and suffering, permanent disability and loss of matrimonial prospects due to the injury causing impotency and has also claimed Rs. 4,355.00 as special damages as per the details given in the claim petition.
(3.) The respondents challenged the claim by their written statement Ex. 11 and 14 contending inter alia that the accident did not result from the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.2. It is the case of the defence that on the relevant day, the claimant was driving his bicycle ahead of the ST bus and when he was about to cross the road, one rickshaw came from the opposite direction and dashed against his bicycle and while trying to save himself, the claimant fell in front of the bus for which the respondent no.2 was not at all responsible. It is the say of the respondent no.2 that he drove the bus at a moderate speed and carefully and the accident resulted on account of carelessness on the part of the claimant himself. Both the original opponents have denied the injuries sustained by the claimant, taking treatment in the hospital and the injury which rendered the claimant impotent and the claim for damages under various heads. Finally, without prejudice to their main contention, it was submitted that the claim of the claimant is highly exaggerated.;