Skip to content


Kailash Chand Vs. Ramchand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1986)ACC183
AppellantKailash Chand
RespondentRamchand and ors.
Cases ReferredSanjiva Shetty v. Anantha
Excerpt:
- - in our opinion that case is clearly distinguishable. that was a case where the injured was a boy of 4 1/2 years at the time of accident and one of his legs bad to be amputated as a result of the accident......allahabad. the claimant-respondent while he was a boy of 15 years in the year 1976 was reading in high school and was also doing some part-time work and earning a sum of rs. 150/- per month. on the date of the accident he was dashed from behind by truck no. uib 2540 owned by the appellant and driven by his driver. the boy was seriously injured and ultimately his one of the legs had to be amputated. he made a claim for compensation and the tribunal by the award appealed against awarded a sum of rs. 54,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum and costs. the award was made against the appellant as also against the insurance company. we have been informed by counsel for the appellant that the insurance company, against whom the award was for the.....
Judgment:

N.D. Ojha, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the owner of a truck against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad. The claimant-respondent while he was a boy of 15 years in the year 1976 was reading in High School and was also doing some part-time work and earning a sum of Rs. 150/- per month. On the date of the accident he was dashed from behind by truck No. UIB 2540 owned by the appellant and driven by his driver. The boy was seriously injured and ultimately his one of the legs had to be amputated. He made a claim for compensation and the Tribunal by the award appealed against awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum and costs. The award was made against the appellant as also against the Insurance Company. We have been informed by counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company, against whom the award was for the highest statutory amount of Rs. 50,000/- has already deposited that sum. In substance, therefore, the appellant is now aggrieved against the award of Rs. 54,000/- which is to be paid by him together with cost and interest.

2. Having heard counsel for the appellant at some length we find it difficult to take the view that the award suffers from any such error which may justify interference in the present appeal The finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck owned by the appellant is based on cogent evidence and does not call for any interference, As regards the sum of Rs. 54,000/- awarded as compensation, it may be seen that the claimant-respondent when he met with the accident was not only studying in the high school but was also earning a sum of Rs. 150/- per month. In K. Gopalakrishanan v. Sankara Narayanan : AIR1968Mad436 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the award of a sum of Rs. 57,000/-as compensation to the appellant K. Gopalakrishnan of that case who also, as a student, had suffered injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of a decision bench of Karnataka High Court in Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha AIR 1976 Knt. 146. In that case it was held that general damages of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable. In our opinion that case is clearly distinguishable. That was a case where the injured was a boy of 4 1/2 years at the time of accident and one of his legs bad to be amputated as a result of the accident. The distinction in the two cases is obvious, In that case the boy was 4 1/2 years only and his future prospects could not be assessed. In the instant case the claimant respondent at the time of accident was aged 15 years and was reading in the High School He appears to be a studious boy and even while reading in the High School, he was also earning Rs. 150/- per month by doing some part-time work. In our opinion the facts of the instant case are more similar to that of K. Gopalakrishnan's case (supra).

3. Counsel for the appellant then urged that the appellant was at any rate not liable to pay future interest on the sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the date on which the said sum was deposited by the Insurance Company. We do not have the details in this behalf and, as such it is not possible for as to take any observation in this regard. However, it would be open to the appellant to make an application in this connection for suitable relief in regard to future interest as aforesaid before the Claims Tribunal.

4. In the result we find no merit in this appeal, It is accordingly dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11 CPC.


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