Skip to content


Shri Chand Vs. Keshav Deo and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1986)ACC88
AppellantShri Chand
RespondentKeshav Deo and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....coming from the opposite direction. it is said that the driver was rash and negligent. the mini truck struck against a rikshaw, hand cart and two cyclists, and in all this the appellant was also injured on his leg.3 the appellant filed a claim petition for rs. 26500/- as compensation. the petition was filed through the next friend and father of badruddin.4 the respondents filed separate written statements. the respondent no. 1 is the owner of the truck and it denied that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver. respondent no. 2 challenged the quantum claimed by the appellant and also raised the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. the plea of notice was also raised.5. the tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and.....
Judgment:

O.P. Saxena, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act against the order dated 1st December 1977 passed by the Claims Tribunal (Second Additional District Judge, Mathura) awarding a compensation of Rs 5500/- with interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from the date of award till the realization. The respondent No. 2 was made liable to pay the entire amount.

2 On 31st March 1976, the appellant, a minor boy aged about 6 years, was the victim of a motor accident. He was going on the left side of the road along with his father Badruddin. A Mini truck, USG 4268 was coming from the opposite direction. It is said that the driver was rash and negligent. The Mini Truck struck against a rikshaw, hand cart and two cyclists, and in all this the appellant was also injured on his leg.

3 The appellant filed a claim petition for Rs. 26500/- as compensation. The petition was filed through the next friend and father of Badruddin.

4 The respondents filed separate written statements. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the truck and it denied that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver. Respondent No. 2 challenged the quantum claimed by the appellant and also raised the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The plea of notice was also raised.

5. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mini truck and that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 5500/- as compensation. The Tribunal repelled other pleas raised by the respondents. The appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded has come in appeal.

6. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded is much too inadequate.

7. The appellants claimed the following amount:

1. Rs. 10,000/- for injury to leg.

2. Rs. 3,000/- for medical expenses.

3. Rs. 5,000/- for mental shock.

4. Rs. 5,000/- for general pain and mental shock.

5. Rs. 2,000/- for spending money or attendance.

6. Rs. 500/- loss of work.

7. Rs. 500/- other expenses.

8. The Tribunal allowed the following amounts:

1. Rs. 4,500/- for his leg injury.

2. Rs. 1,000/- for expendition regarding trial court.

The other sums were refused by the Tribunal. It has been conceded before me that the damages could be awarded under two heads:

(1) General damages; and

(2) Special damage.

The general damages will include damages for pain and shock. The special damages will include all expenditure incurred in connection with the treatment The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as damages for mental shock to the father, which was wholly unjustified. The Tribunal rightly awarded damages under two beads and what has to be seen as to whether the damages awarded under each head are adequate.

9. PW 1 H.C. Benami Singh PW 2 G.R. Nathau Hospital Assistant PW 3 Badruddin the father of the appellant, PW 4 Sri Rajiv Malhotra partner of a medical firm, PW 5 Kailash Chandra a photographer, PW 6 Suresh Chandra an eye witness, the respondents.

10. The appellant did not examine any doctor to prove the nature of the injury caused to him or the treatment given to him. There is no evidence to show whether any permanent injury was caused, to the appellant. There is also no evidence to show that the limping of the appellant is of a permanent nature and will not be cured by the passage of time. The evidence, however, shows that the appellant remained confined in the hospital from 31-3-1974 to 15-5-1976 and skin grafting had to be done on 6-5-1976. In the circumstances the Tribunal could have awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as general damages.

11. As far the special damages are concerned, the appellant had to remain in the hospital for a considerably long period, that is, from 31-3-1976 to 16.6.1976, He had to undergo skin grafting. Exs. 2 to 33 are various cash memoes filed by the appellant. As he was in a hospital for a fairly long time, the Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as special damages. This would cover the treatment and the expenses incurred during the course of the stay in the hospital.

12. I, therefore, hold that the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 7,000/- as compensation.

13. The appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded against the respondents is enhanced to Rs. 7,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application till the date of payment. The appellant will also be entitled to the proportionate costs of both of the courts. The respondent No. 3, the insurer will be liable to pay the entire amount.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //