Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1568 (PNJ)

Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Mahender Pal

2000-12-21

R.L.ANAND

body2000
Judgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of F. A. O. No.372 of 1998 titled Bhakra Beas Management Board V/s. Mahender Pal and the Cross-objections no.37 of 1998, as the appeal and cross-objections have arisen from one award dated 2.12.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh who awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000 to respondent cross-objector, by way of compensation for his sustaining injuries, against the present appellant and the driver of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that mahender Pal, respondent cross-objector, filed a petition under sec. 166 read with sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short to be referred as the Act)against Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short to be referred as the Board) and its driver Ajit Singh and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 for the injuries suffered by him; on account of pain and suffering due to those injuries; loss of enjoyment of life; medical expenses including medicines and hospitalisation; special diet, conveyance, etc. According to the claimant, he was aged 42 years at the time of the accident and he was in Government service. He was working as a Junior accountant in the Ministry of Defence, border Roads, Delhi and was getting salary of Rs.5,000 per month. The accident took place on 12.5.1995 at about 3 p. m. in sector 35-B, Chandigarh. F. I. R. No.62 of 1995 was lodged with regard to this accident against Ajit Singh under sections 279/ 337/338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh. At the time of the accident the claimant was driving his scooter No. CH 01-H 9966. He was coming from Sector 41 and was going to his house situated in Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. Regarding the nature of the injuries, it was mentioned by the claimant that he suffered a fracture of neck of right femur. Besides that he suffered a lacerated wound on the left eyebrow and contusion of left lower arm. The treatment of injury No.1 is still going on and the claimant has also spent Rs.65,000 till the date of filing of the claim petition. Besides that he suffered a lacerated wound on the left eyebrow and contusion of left lower arm. The treatment of injury No.1 is still going on and the claimant has also spent Rs.65,000 till the date of filing of the claim petition. He was treated in General hospital, Sector 16, and also in the PGI. The accident took place with Ambassador car bearing registration No. CH 01-G 1048 which was being driven by Ajit Singh and the vehicle belongs to the Board. After the accident, the claimant was removed to general Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for one day and on the next day, i. e. , 13.5.1995 he was referred to the PGI. Thirteen stitches were applied upon him and these stitches left a permanent scar. He was operated upon on 26.5.1995 for treating the fracture of right femur for which a piece of bone was taken from his left lower leg for grafting and stainless steel screw was put in the femur to unite the fracture.13 stitches were applied on the cut from where the bone was grafted and 18 stitches were applied on the cut near right hip. The claimant cannot put weight on the right leg and he has to walk with the help of crutches. He cannot squat or sit on haunches. He was a national level hockey player and now he would not be in a position to play this game and other outdoor games throughout his life. He remained in PGI from 13.5.1995 to 12.6.1995 and after a lapse of two years the claimant would require another operation when the stainless steel screw will be removed from his right femur. 3. Giving the cause of accident it was alleged by the claimant that on 12.5.1995 at about 3 p. m. he, after collecting his children from their school in Sector 41, was going to his house in Sector 35-B on the scooter referred to above. The children were sitting on the pillion of the scooter and when the claimant reached near the intersection of by-lane near CDA Colony health Centre, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, an Ambassador motor car, referred above, came. It was being driven at a very fast speed and in a very rash and negligent manner by Ajit Singh, driver. The children were sitting on the pillion of the scooter and when the claimant reached near the intersection of by-lane near CDA Colony health Centre, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, an Ambassador motor car, referred above, came. It was being driven at a very fast speed and in a very rash and negligent manner by Ajit Singh, driver. The car came from the left side and hit the scooter of the claimant from the front side after negotiating the turn. As a result of which, the accident took place and the claimant suffered grievous injuries which have already been described above. His children escaped unhurt. The driver of the car dragged the scooter to a distance of about 15-20 yards and the car had stopped only because the scooter got stuck under its front wheels. Ajit Singh backed his car which got disentangled from the scooter and then he tried to run away from the spot but he was prevented from doing so by the persons who gathered at the spot. With the above allegations the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 besides interest. 4. Notice of the claim petition was given by the Tribunal to the respondent therein. Two sets of written statements were filed, one by Ajit Singh and other by the Board. According to respondent No.1, ajit Singh, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Mahender Pal claimant who did not observe the traffic rules. Moreover, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits the stand of this respondent is that on 12.5.1995 he was driving the Ambassador car and was coming from a lane which connects the Rest House of the Board. He was driving the said car slowly and was on the correct side of the road. In the meanwhile, a scooter, which was driven by the claimant, came from a lane in front of Guru gobind Singh School in Sector 35-B. The scooter was being driven at a very fast speed. The driver of the scooter was carrying a girl aged about 11 years who was standing in the front and a boy aged about 13 years who was sitting on the pillion seat. He crossed half of the crossing when the claimant, on seeing the car along with the children tried to cross in front of the car instead of stopping. He crossed half of the crossing when the claimant, on seeing the car along with the children tried to cross in front of the car instead of stopping. Seeing that the claimant was trying to cross the road, respondent No.1 had taken his car to the left side in order to save him and his children. In fact the claimant was driving the scooter at a very fast speed and he struck against the front right side of the car and caused the accident. The vision of the scooterist was also obstructed because a child was standing in front of the seat of the driver of scooter. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving, want of proper care and non-observance of the rules of traffic by the claimant. With this defence, respondent No.1 Ajit Singh made a prayer for the dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The respondent No.2 Management board, now appellant, also filed a separate written statement and the stand of the board was similar as that of Ajit Singh and i need not incorporate the pleadings of the board in the present judgment as it would be a repetition of the same. 6. From the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? (2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Relief. 7. Parties led the oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Tribunal decided the issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents for the reasons given in paras 15 to 18 of the award which are quoted as follows: " (15) I have seen the photographs as well as the site plan prepared by the investigating Officer. The perusal of the same reveals that the scooter has not struck towards the right side of the vehicle but the scooter was hit from the front side by the car. Had the car been driven at a slow speed of 20 kilometres per hour as per the case of respondent No.1 then after seeing the scooter, he could have applied the brakes, so as to avoid the accident. Had the car been driven at a slow speed of 20 kilometres per hour as per the case of respondent No.1 then after seeing the scooter, he could have applied the brakes, so as to avoid the accident. The version of respondent no.1 is although supported by Ram inder, RW 1, yet they both being the employees of respondent No.2, the evidence of RW 1 cannot be said to be independent evidence. Even his name has neither been mentioned in the petition nor the name has been suggested to the petitioner, while he appeared in the witness-box. (16) In this view of the matter, I do not agree with Mr. Puri that it is best a case of contributory negligence. (17) Admittedly, the car came from the side lane and as such, it was the duty of the driver to see as to whether any other vehicle was going on the main road or not. Thus, even if the injured was not vigilant to see as to whether any vehicle was coming from the side lane, it would not make him liable for negligence. (18) Resultantly thus, I hold that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent No.1. The issue as such, is decided in favour of the petitioner. " 8. Issue No.2 was partly decided in favour of claimant for the reasons given in paras 31 and 32 of the award and the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000 in favour of the claimant against the respondent with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The broad reasons given by the Tribunal, as contained in paras 31 and 32 while deciding issue No.2, are quoted as below: " (31) Keeping this in view, I agree with counsel for the petitioner that the kind of disability suffered by the petitioner could very well be imagined. He remained confined to bed for 4 months. He was unable to sit or squat. He was still not in a position to answer the call of nature in the Indian pattern of latrine. He was a player of hockey as per certificates placed on the record. He remained confined to bed for 4 months. He was unable to sit or squat. He was still not in a position to answer the call of nature in the Indian pattern of latrine. He was a player of hockey as per certificates placed on the record. Although these certificates pertain to the years 1973 to 1975, the petitioner has suffered a great agony of pain and has not been able to discharge his marital obligations towards his wife. (32) Thus, keeping in view the totality of circumstances and evidence on the file, I consider it a fit case to allow medical expenses to the tune of Rs.46,000. He is further allowed an amount of rs.24,000 on account of transportation charges. It is a fit case to allow an amount of Rs.1,00,000 on account of pain and suffering. Further amount of rs.1,00,000 is allowed on account of the disability and enjoyment of life suffered by him. He is allowed another amount of Rs.10,000 on account of attendant charges and another amount of Rs.10,000 on account of special diet, etc. " 9. Both the parties are aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and that is the reason that Board has come in appeal, while Mahender Pal has filed the cross-objections and I am disposing of both, with the assistance rendered by Mr. Munishwar puri, who appeared on behalf of the Board and Mr. Sandeep Moudgil who appeared for the claimant and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Appellant Board has assailed the finding on issue No.1. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Mahender Pal who did not observe the traffic rules. He was careless and his carelessness is further verified from the fact that a young girl, aged about 11 years, was standing in front of the driver of the scooter and she might have obstructed the vision of the driver who was solely responsible for the accident. He submitted that the accident had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the driver of the scooter, rather the story given by the driver of the car Ajit Singh is more in consonance with the situation as per the spot. He submitted that the accident had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the driver of the scooter, rather the story given by the driver of the car Ajit Singh is more in consonance with the situation as per the spot. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error when he took into consideration the evidence of the criminal file in the present proceedings and in these circumstances, the award of the Tribunal cannot sustain in the eyes of law. It is also the criticism of mr. Puri that the Tribunal has given perfunctory reason in deciding issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. The evidence of the parties has not been properly discussed and, therefore, this appeal of the Board should be accepted on this ground by reversing the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has supported the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 and submitted that the accident had taken place due to negligence of Ajit Singh. 11. I have independently examined the evidence led by the parties on issue No.1. At the cost of repetition, I may say that the case set up by the claimant in the pleadings was that when he reached near the intersection of by-lane near CDA Colony Health centre, the car came there and hit the scooter from its front side after negotiating the turn. Let me see what is the position at the spot and whether the defence of Ajit singh can be believed for a moment. Claimant Mahender Pal appeared as his own witness and he deposed that on the date of the accident at about 3 p. m. he was taking his children to his house from the school on scooter and when he entered on his scooter in Sector 35-B, he was on the left side of the road and speed of the scooter was hardly 5-10 km. per hour, and when he reached near the crossroad in Sector 35, he blew the horn and gave the signal. He also deposed that he entered the crossroad and while he was in the centre of the road in the process of crossing, the Ambassador car came from the left side. per hour, and when he reached near the crossroad in Sector 35, he blew the horn and gave the signal. He also deposed that he entered the crossroad and while he was in the centre of the road in the process of crossing, the Ambassador car came from the left side. The car was at a fast speed and it hit from the left side and as a result, he bounced to a quite distance because of impact. The scooter along with children was dragged at some distance and the car stopped after the scooter came under the said car. The driver backed his car and after doing that he put the scooter on its stand and once again the driver started his car and tried to run away, but some people gathered there who did not allow the driver to run away. 12. As against this, I have the statement of Ajit Singh who appeared as RW 4. According to him, the accident took place at 2.15 p. m. and when he reached near house no.1400, he blew horn. He was driving his car slowly on the left side and in the meanwhile a scooter came from the right side. That scooter was being driven by the claimant. A girl child was standing in front of him and the other child was sitting on the pillion seat. It was further deposed by ajit Singh that when he was crossing the crossing itself, the scooter came from the right side and dashed in the right side of the car. The scooter was being driven at a very high speed. Thereafter the driver of the scooter fell down on the left side by flying over the bonnet of the car because of the impact. People may lie, they are in the habit of exaggerating the things. It is the human tendency that everybody will try to minimise his own role and he will try to magnify the role of other party. Everybody would like to show himself innocent and want to put the blame on the others. But there are certain glaring facts from which a reasonable inference can always be drawn as to who is guilty of causing the accident. This accident had taken place in a crossing. Everybody would like to show himself innocent and want to put the blame on the others. But there are certain glaring facts from which a reasonable inference can always be drawn as to who is guilty of causing the accident. This accident had taken place in a crossing. In such a situation, it is the duty of the driver of the car to see that no vehicle or traffic is coming from the other directions, in such a manner, that it may create a situation of an accident. It is the fundamental rule of traffic that when a driver reaches a crossing, then he is bound to slow down the speed of his vehicle so that the accident may be avoided. When ajit Singh was entering into the crossing through the lane, it was his duty to slow down the vehicle so as to give a smooth passage to the others who had already entered into the crossing. From the statement of Ajit Singh, it is abundantly clear that the impact of the accident was to such an extent that the scooterist Mahender Pal had to fly over the bonnet of the car. This leaves no manner of doubt that Ajit Singh was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner. He did not bother to see the position of the scooterist and as a result of that, the car banged into the scooter and resultantly the accident took place. Otherwise, we all know that a scooter is a slow moving vehicle as compared to car. It is also the common case of the parties that at the time of the accident Mahender Pal was having two children on his scooter. In these circumstances, reasonable inference can always be drawn that speed of the scooter would not be very fast as suggested by the learned counsel Mr. Puri. 13. Even the conduct of Ajit Singh suggests that he was responsible for this accident. He did not make any representation to his office or to the appellants with regard to his false implication in the criminal case. Rather an attempt has been made by the appellant to introduce false witness in this case so as to shift the blame upon Mahender Pal. To corroborate the statement of Ajit Singh, the Board examined Ram inder as RW 1, Pawan Kumar as RW 2 and Sarwan Kumar as RW 3. Rather an attempt has been made by the appellant to introduce false witness in this case so as to shift the blame upon Mahender Pal. To corroborate the statement of Ajit Singh, the Board examined Ram inder as RW 1, Pawan Kumar as RW 2 and Sarwan Kumar as RW 3. It has been admitted in the cross-examination of Ajit singh that he never gave the name of RW 1 to his counsel as an eyewitness while filing the written statement yet, Ram Inder appeared as RW 1 and he tried to show that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the claimant. In my opinion, this witness has been introduced by the appellant. He is an employee of the Board itself. Since he was serving in the house of the officer at the relevant time, so he was made a witness to say that the accident took place due to negligence of Mahender Pal. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that this witness was in a position to see the accident; where he was working at the relevant time and whether, the place of accident was visible from that side or not. The statement of Pawan Kumar cannot be of much advantage to the appellant because he himself is not an eyewitness. Similarly, the statement of Sarwan Kumar, RW 3, is beyond the issue because he has simply proved the posting of RW 1. Thus, I am left with the statement of two witnesses, namely, Mahender Pal and that of Ajit Singh. I have to see whether the story of Mahender pal is probable or that of Ajit Singh. I have tried to show above that the accident had taken place due to the sole responsibility of ajit Singh when he banged the car against the scooter from one side, causing the accident. The flying over of Mahender Pal over the bonnet of the car is a prima facie and presumptive proof that Ajit Singh did not slow down the vehicle while entering into the crossing. He brought the car at a high speed in a negligent manner and entered in the intersection, and thus, issue No.1 has to be decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. The story of contributory negligence as propounded by Mr. Puri is totally rejected though much stress was laid by Mr. He brought the car at a high speed in a negligent manner and entered in the intersection, and thus, issue No.1 has to be decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. The story of contributory negligence as propounded by Mr. Puri is totally rejected though much stress was laid by Mr. Puri that in the alternative, the court may give the finding that it is case of contributory negligence. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases Narpal V/s. Kanta devi, 1993 ACJ 175 (Pandh); Sachdeva rice Mills V/s. Raj Anand, 1987 ACJ 821 (Pandh) and Dukha Dev Sarkar V/s. Government of India, Labour Welfare Department, 1994 ACJ 131 (Orissa) and submitted that it is a case of negligence on the part of Mahender Pal, or in the alternative, it is a case of contributory negligence. I had already stated above and have tried to show that it is the case of negligence on the part of Ajit singh. Therefore, no benefit of the case-law can be granted to Mr. Puri. 15. As regards issue No.2, I had already stated above that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000. The break-up of rs.2,90,000 is as follows: rs.46,000 towards medical expenses, rs.24,000 on account of transportation charges, Rs.1,00,000 on account of pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000 on account of disability and enjoyment of life suffered by him and Rs.10,000 on account of attendant charges and another amount of Rs.10,000 on account of special diet, etc. 16. Let me examine the evidence afresh to see, whether this finding of the Tribunal is justified. PW 1 is Dr. Deepak Bakshi who medically examined the injured on 12.5.1995 and found the following three injuries: (1) Complaint of pain in the right hip. Advised X-ray. (2) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 5 cm. on the left eyebrow. Fresh bleeding present. Advised X-ray. (3) Abrasion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the dorsomedial aspect of left forearm middle part. Injury was red. 17. Injury No.3 was declared simple while injuries 1 and 2 were kept under observation. After the X-ray examination, a fracture was found in the pelvis region of neck of right femur. There was no abnormality in the skull. Resultantly, injury No.1 was declared grievous. Dr. S. P. Bhard-waj, PW, simply conducted X-ray examination of the injured, PW 3 is Dr. Injury No.3 was declared simple while injuries 1 and 2 were kept under observation. After the X-ray examination, a fracture was found in the pelvis region of neck of right femur. There was no abnormality in the skull. Resultantly, injury No.1 was declared grievous. Dr. S. P. Bhard-waj, PW, simply conducted X-ray examination of the injured, PW 3 is Dr. Ramesh kumar Sen who was a member of the disability board, who examined the injured and disability of the claimant was assessed at 15 per cent for the whole body and 45 per cent of the right lower limb, and the certificate to this effect was issued. In the cross-examination, he stated that the certificate Exh. P-2 does not disclose any data on the basis of which the disability had been calculated. However, the necessary details have been given in separate pro forma of medical check-up which is Exh. P-3. Dr. Parsana is PW 4. According to this witness, the patient suffered fracture of neck of femur. He was operated upon on 26.5.95 and for uniting the fracture, open reduction and internal fixation was done. Bone-grafting had to be done for putting the screws. The hip joint was opened. After this he was put in a splint for six weeks. The patient was discharged and even at that time also, his fracture had not been united. It was further opined by the doctor that the patient was confined to bed throughout his period of admission in PGI. He could not move about and also could not attend to call of nature in a normal way. It has been admitted by this witness that after his discharge from the hospital on 12.6.1995, he had not examined the patient. PW 6 Dalip singh stated that the claimant submitted medical bills for reimbursement on account of treatment to the tune of Rs.40,392 during the month of August, 1995. He further stated that the entire amount had been reimbursed to the claimant. Thus, this is the entire independent evidence which has been led bv the claimant. 18. Apart from this, Mahender Pal deposed that he remained admitted up to 12.6.95 in the PGI. Stitches were applied upon him. Those stitches have left permanent scar. He kept lying on the bed as a result of that bedsores developed which kept him in the state of great pain. His leg was kept in a box. 18. Apart from this, Mahender Pal deposed that he remained admitted up to 12.6.95 in the PGI. Stitches were applied upon him. Those stitches have left permanent scar. He kept lying on the bed as a result of that bedsores developed which kept him in the state of great pain. His leg was kept in a box. For four months he kept on attending the calls of nature in the bed. He is unable to use Indian type of toilet. He cannot squat on the floor and cannot even stand for a long time. He cannot run or play games, but earlier he used to play hockey. He had to engage three-wheeler scooter for transport or sometimes had to engage a rickshaw or taxi. He had to come to PGI for follow-up treatment once in a month from Lahaul Spiti to Chandigarh and used to spend more than Rs.2,000 to Rs.2,500 by way of taxi. He had to spend Rs.50 per day as minimum charges on autorickshaw. He had to engage two attendants to whom he was paying Rs.1,500 each. He could not perform marital obligations towards his wife for about one year. It was extremely difficult to make love with his wife even at present because of his disability. He had to wear a special type of shoes. He cannot go out of station. With this background, the claimant has tried to justify that he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,00,000. I have examined the evidence of the medical attendants and other witnesses of the claimant and in my view, the Tribunal fell in error in awarding Rs.46,000 by way of medical expenses when the entire medical claim of the claimant was fully paid by the department. Though the claimant has not produced any receipts with regard to the transportation charges, yet keeping in view the fact that the appellant had to come to chandigarh for follow-up treatment, some assistance of transportation must have been required by him for his medical treatment. I am not inclined to reduce any amount from Rs.24,000 which was awarded by the Tribunal on account of transportation charges. In my opinion, the Tribunal fell in error when it awarded an amount of rs.1,00,000 on account of pain and suffering. Virtually, there was only one injury. General body disability was only 15 per cent. I am not inclined to reduce any amount from Rs.24,000 which was awarded by the Tribunal on account of transportation charges. In my opinion, the Tribunal fell in error when it awarded an amount of rs.1,00,000 on account of pain and suffering. Virtually, there was only one injury. General body disability was only 15 per cent. The appellant remained confined in the hospital for one month and thereafter in the house, for four months. In my opinion, the just compensation which should be awarded to the claimant under this head is Rs.50,000. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by him and keeping in view the deformity undertaken by the claimant and the permanent injuries in the shape of scar on the body I am not inclined to reduce the compensation of Rs.1,00,000 which has been allowed by the Tribunal on account of the disability and enjoyment. But I am not inclined to give to the claimant Rs.10,000 on account of the attendant charges nor I am in a position to award him rs.10,000 on account of special diet. No attendant has appeared in the witness-box nor any receipt of the attendant has been placed on record. With regard to the special diet, I am inclined to award Rs.1,000 only and in all, Rs.1,75,000. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue No.2 stands modified and claimant is allowed an amount of Rs.1,75,000 by way of compensation which amount has to be paid by the Board and the driver of the car jointly and severally besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000 has already been paid to the claimant. This amount will be adjusted. The Board will now calculate the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum at Rs.1,75,000 from the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 11.8.1995 till the date of the payment and out of the amount so calculated, a sum of Rs.1,50,000 shall be deducted. The rest of the amount shall be paid by the appellant within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. The rest of the amount shall be paid by the appellant within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the cases M. Padmanabha V/s. Union of India, 1999 ACJ 1355 (Karnataka) and sarwan Singh V/s. Paramjit Singh, 1996 ACJ 660 (Pandh) and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Every case has to go by facts. No meticulous parameters can be laid down by a Presiding Officer while awarding the compensation and that is the reason that the legislature has used the word just in the provisions of sec. 168 of the Act. The evidence of two cases can never be alike or similar. I had already reduced the compensation awarded from Rs.2,90,000 to Rs.1,75,000 after making reappraisal of the entire evidence of the parties on issue no.2. 19. Since I have reduced the compensation in the main appeal itself, the cross-objections of respondent Mahender Pal are hereby dismissed. Appeal partly allowed.