S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) In an accident between the Haryana State Electricity Board jeep HRH -7279 and the Haryana Roadways Bus HRH -5188, coming from the opposite direction, Sohan Lal Kamra, who was in the jeep was killed while Gobind Raj Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer, who was driving it, sustained injuries. This happened on May 2, 1980 at about 2 -30 P.M. on the Sirsa -Hissar Road. Two separate claims for compensation were filed -one by the widow and children of Sohan LalKamra deceased and the other by the injured claimant Gobind Raj Mehta. These two claim applications were unfortunately entrusted to different Tribunals for disposal and they came to contradictory findings on the issue of negligence in Gobind Raj Mehta's case which was decided on May 31, 1983, negligence was held to be wholly that of the bus -driver, but in the other claim application, namely that relating to Sohan Lal Kamra deceased, the Tribunal held that the fault lay entirely with the driver of the jeep. As it happens no appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana in Gobind Raj Mehta's case with the result that the funding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the bus -driver, has now acquired finality. This percludes the court now from giving any different findings in appeal here and it must consequently also follow that the finding in the case of Sohan Lal Kamra deceased that the negligence was of the driver of the jeep cannot be allowed to stand. In other words, it must beheld that the accident here must be taken to have been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus -driver.
(2.) As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, it will be seen that in the case of Sohan Lal Kamra, the claimants have already been awarded the entire amount claimed. The only relief that they can thus claim and must also be granted to them is with regard to the interest payable on the amount awarded.
(3.) The main claim for enhanced compensation is in the case of the injured claimant Gobind Raj Mehta. According to P.W. 1 Prof. R.K. Keshwani of the Medical College, Rohtak, the claimant had laceration on his face and fracture of the bones around the left eye. He had also a fracture on the left scapula bone and fracture of left tibia. He had problem with the movement of the left eye. During his treatment in the hospital, a complication arose on account of the development of meningitis which was said to be the direct result of his injuries. Prof. Keshwani went on to depose that he operated upon the eye bones of the claimant. There were multiple fractures there and the bones had to be wired together. As a result of this accident, the claimant had suffered disfigurement of the face which was of a permanent nature.;