- (1.) THE circumstances, giving rise to this appeal, may be briefly stated as under:
(2.) ON July 15, 1968, at about 7. 30 A. M. , the appellant boarded bus No. PNT-5969 from Chandigarh for Patiala. The said bus belonged to the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation (Respondent 1 ). Dharam Singh (Respondent 2) had driven the said bus. He drove it at a high speed and negligently. When the said bus reached opposite Police Station Sadar Patiala, it went on the right hand kutcha portion of the road, struck against a cyclist and a neem tree and then turned turtle. In the said accident, the appellant sustained a big wound on his right hand (hereinafter referred to as the injury) from a broken piece of glass of a window of the bus. He suffered profuse bleeding from the injury. He was removed to Rajindra Hospital where he remained as indoor patient for two days. Hence, he claimed Rs. 20,000/-as compensation for the injury, with the allegations that the aforesaid accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the bus by Dharam Singh and that his monthly income was Rs. 400/ -. Dharam Singh did not enter appearance despite his service. So, he was proceeded ex parte. The claim was contested by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. It pleaded, inter alia, that the accident had not taken place due to negligence or carelessness of Dharam Singh driver and that the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation. Hence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) struck the following issues :- 1. Whether the vehicular accident in this case took place due to the negligence of Dharam Singh respondent No. 2? If so, with what effect? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, up to what extent and from whom?
(3.) RELIEF. The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in the affirmative and held under issue No. 2 that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the injury and awarded the same to him against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant has come to this Court in appeal for enhancement of the same. 3. The evidence present on the record proves beyond any manner of doubt that the bus had gone on the right hand side on the kutcha portion of the road and it turned turtle. Having regard to the maxim of res ipsa loquitur, the said circumstances were sufficient to show that the accident, wherein the appellant had sustained the injury, was due to negligent driving of the bus by Dharam Singh. Having considered the evidence present on record, the Tribunal has concluded so, and in my opinion rightly. So, the finding on issue No. 1, despite the argument of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1 that Dharam Singh was not negligent in driving the bus, is correct and the same is affirmed.;