Mukteshwar Prasad, J. - (1.) -First Appeal From Order No. 517 of 1981 filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1981, passed by Sri D. K. Trivedi, the then Additional District Judge/Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby he allowed the claim petition of respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs. 32,680 in all as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
(2.) FIRST Appeal From Order No. 568 of 1981 was filed on behalf of Sanjay Awasthi, claimant against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1981, passed by Sri D. K. Trivedi the then Additional District Judge/Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby his application for compensation was partly allowed and the Corporation was directed to pay Rs. 32,680 as compensation along with interest. Since both these appeals have arisen out of one judgment and order dated 25.4.1981, as such, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Claimant Sanjay Awasthi through his father Budhi Kishore Awasthi filed a claim petition for grant of Rs. 3,67,680 as compensation for the grievous injury sustained by him on 1.5.1979 at about 11 p.m. According to the claimant, he was travelling by bus No. UPG 3392 owned by the Corporation and was going to his village Gehlaun from Chunniganj Bus Station, Kanpur. When the bus reached village Naraujahan, the driver dashed the right side of the bus with the wall of the house owned by Bhikoo Kahar/ Faqirey as a result of which claimant sustained serious injury in his right arm. He developed serious pain and there was profuse bleeding from the injury. Next morning, he was brought to the hospital at Kanpur, where his right arm was amputated to save his life. The claimant served the notice demanding compensation from the Corporation but no compensation was paid.
(3.) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the Corporation, Driver and Conductor of the bus in question. The Corporation admitted that the injured (claimant) was travelling in the bus in question on the impugned date but he had stretched his hand outside the window. When the bus was passing through the narrow road and on account of stretching of his hand, he sustained injury with the wall. It was also alleged that the claimant sustained injury on account of his own negligence and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the Corporation. A replication was also filed on behalf of the claimant denying that injury in question was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus.;