Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THIS First appeal is directed against an order, dated 19.5.1964, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh by which he partly disallowed the claim of the Appellant. It arises out of the following facts:
(2.) ON 28.5.1963, Sukhdev Singh Appellant, a youngman of 28 years, was going to village Rurki on his bicycle. Jagrup Singh and Sher Singh Miseries were accompanying him on their bicycles. Bus No. 5798 belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport, Corporation, driven at a fast speed by Kundan Singh, came from behind and kicked down Sukhdev Singh. The bus egged and carried away the victim along with his bicycle 60 feet ahead from the scene of the accident before stopping. Sukhdev Singh received grievous injuries all over the body, including right side of forehead, right thigh, left leg, left hand, right hand left side of the abdomen, right side of nose and right cheek. He became unconscious. The driver of the offending bus escaped. The conductor stayed behind. Another bus arrived on the scene. Laxmi Chand and Arjan Singh Mistry removed the injured to Rajendra Hospital Patiala. Jagrup Singh lodged the First Information Report, exhibit A.W. 2/1, with the Police. Owing to brain damage, Sukhdev Singh became completely paralysed. To release pressure in brain, Sukhdev Singh was operated upon on 13.6.1963. This only resulted in slight improvement. Thereafter, he was removed to the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, where he remained under the treatment of Dr. Gulati till 27.8.1963. He was readmitted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, on 28.8. 1963. As there was difficulty in breathing, tracheotomy had to be performed on 31.8.1963. The injured continued to be unconscious or semi -conscious. The head injury, according to the opinion of Dr. G.S. Sekhon, has caused permanent disability to the injured who will remain bed ridden and will not be able to move about or pursue any kind of avocation for the rest of his life. On the other hand, there was every apprehension of his condition taking a fatal turn. Surjit Kaur, wife of Sukhdev Singh injured, made an application on the latter's behalf claiming Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation against the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver belonging to the aforesaid Corporation. It was further held that Surjit Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh injured was competent to file the claim application on behalf of her injured husband. In the result, he has awarded Rs. 10,000/ - only as compensation to the injured. Hence this appeal by the claimant.
(3.) NO cross -appeal has been filed by the Respondent to challenge the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver. Thus the only question for determination before me, is, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured is adequate. Before dealing with this point, it will be proper to mention here that in this Court, the Appellant had moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to produce additional evidence to show that after his discharge from the Hospital also, the injured continues to be bed -ridden, incapacitated and semiconscious, entailing a recurring expenditure of more than Rs. 140/ - per month for his nursing and treatment. This application was strenuously opposed by the Respondent. I have disallowed it per separate order of date, which may be read as a part of this order.;