1. This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 from the award dated 27th Oct., 1971 by the Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Member directed that an amount of Rs. 55,000/- be paid to the respondent Shivprakash as damages on account of the injuries caused to him in the course of an accident, which took place on 25-7-1968 in the city of Jaipur, while the said respondent was being carried on the carrier of a cycle driven by his servant. The respondent's case, as set out in the claim petition, was that while he was being taken on the carrier of the cycle by his servant Ratanlal from Gujarati Samaj School, the motor car No. A.S.E. 4105 belonging to M/s. Tinsukhia Flour Mills, which was being driven by Prabhu Dayal, dashed against the cycle on the wrong side, as a result of which the respondent fell down and was run over by one of the wheels of the car. As a result of the impact of the car, the left leg of the said respondent was crushed. The respondent was thereafter taken to the hospital and on the advice of the Surgeons his leg had to be amputated the same day. He claimed Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation. In support of his claim, the respondent Shiv-prakash examined himself as PW 1, his servant Katanlal (PW 2), who was taking the respondent on the cycle, Suraj-prakash (PW 3), father of the injured, and Dr. S. M. Dugar (PW 4). The opposite parties, viz., the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle and the driver did not produce any evidence in rebuttal.
2. The learned Member of the Tribunal held that it was due to the rash and negligent 'driving of the vehicle that the accident took place and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to get compensation. As regards the quantum of damages, the learned Member awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of expenses for treatment and in addition to that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded in a lump-sum on account of, pain, mental suffering and permanent physical disability suffered by the respondent.
3. The only point urged by Mr. B. P. Gupta in support of this appeal is that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded on account of disability suffered by the respondent is excessive and deserves to be suitably reduced. He has submitted that no material has been placed on the record for assessment of the damages and the mere fact that the respondent was 14 years old and studying in the school at the time of the accident and that his left leg had to be amputated does not warrant award of exemplary damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha, 1976 Acc CJ 261 : (AIR 1976 Kant 146).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant respondent has strenuously urged that the respondent comes of a well off family in as much as his father is a journalist and that the boy has proved his intelligence and capacity to take rapid strides in life by his achievements as a student in the school. It is further submitted that on account of the loss of an important limb the boy has been highly handicapped in life. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, it is prayed that the award should not be interfered with. In support of his contention he has relied upon Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, AIR 1978 Guj 134, Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 Acc CJ 409 (Punj); K. Gopal Krishnan v. Sankara Narayanan, 1969 Acc CJ 34: (AIR 1968 Mad 436) and Orissa Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Ranjan Kumar Garabaru, 1976 Acc CJ 21 (Orissa).
5. Now, we may observe straightway that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such matters and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case as to how much amount should be awarded as compensation.
6. In Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha (AIR 1976 Kant 146) (supra) a 10 year old boy who happened to be sitting on the road side was involved in the accident by a motor car as a result of which the right leg of the boy above the Knee had to be amputated. After making a reference to a few decided cases, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable and thereby reduced the amount awarded by the Tribunal by Rs. 15,000/-. It may be pointed out that in that case the Tribunal had not referred to any other material or data for the determination of the general damages at Rs. 40,000/-, and it was observed that 'having regard to the resources of the boy's parents and the circumstances in which they were placed and the paucity of evidence in regard thereto', the award of Rs. 40.000/- was excessive.
7. In Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad (AIR 1978 Guj 134) (supra) where a boy aged about 15 years received multiple injuries in the course of the accident and his right leg was fractured and he was limping on account of the shortening of the leg by 1/2 cm. it was held that compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and Rs. 10,300/- on account of future economic loss would meet the ends of justice. In this case, it may be pointed out that the boy belonged to a family doing manual work to earn livelihood.
8. In the Orissa Co-op. Insurance Society Ltd. v. Ranjan Kumar Garabaru (1976 Acc CJ 21) (Orissa) (supra) the left arm of a boy of 7 years was amputated on account of the injuries caused in the course of the accident. The boy was a student in the school. He was awarded compensation at Rs. 75/- per month for 50 years, as the normal expectancy of the boy's life was taken to be 57 years.
9. In Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab (1970 Acc CJ 409) (Punj) (supra) a child aged 41/2 years, whose leg was amputated on account of the injuries caused in the course of the accident was awarded Rs. 3,000/- as cost of original limb, Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of earning capacity, total Rs. 23,000/-. His normal span of life was taken to be 55 years.
10. In K. Gopal Krishanan v. Sankara Narayanan (AIR 1968 Mad 436) (supra) the injured was a student aged 20 years. He met with an accident while he was going on a scooter as a pillion rider. He suffered injuries on account of a lorry dashing against the scooter as a result of which one of his legs had to be amputated As against his claim for damages of Rs. 3,60,210/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 57,685.37 P.
11. Now, in the present case, the boy was aged 14 years at the time of the accident and was reading in 6th class. His father is a journalist. He was being brought home from the school by his servant Ratanlal on a cycle. He is present in the Court along with his father and it is stated by his counsel Mr. G. S. Singhvi, under the instructions of his client, that Shivprakash has now passed B. A. (Hons.) (Part II) Examination and has shown good results by securing a high second class. Thus, it appears that the boy is likely to reach a stage of academic distinction. It cannot be denied that on account of the loss of his left leg he has been considerably handicapped in life and must have undergone a lot of mental agony and suffering. No doubt, the learned Member of the Tribunal has not given any reasons for assessing the amount of damages, but we must take the relevant facts into consideration for fixing the amount of damages. There is no doubt that but for his infirmity the boy could have arisen higher in life and this infirmity may come in his way in attaining the heights to which he may legitimately aspire by dint of his merit. In this view of the matter, the permanent disability which he has suffered may also result in pecuniary loss to him throughout his life.
12. Mr. Gupta has submitted that taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 35,000/-would be a fair amount of compensation. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the accident took place on 25-7-1968 and the award was given by the Tribunal on 27-10-1971, but no pendente lite or future interest was awarded. After filing this appeal, the appellants applied for stay of the recovery proceedings, and this Court directed by its order dated 10th April, 1972 that Rs. 25,000/- may be deposited by the appellants with the Tribunal within 21 days and security may be taken for the rest of the amount. The respondent withdrew this amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 25-5-1972. Thus, it is clear that even after the award was made, the respondent has been deprived of the amount of the award at least to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- for all this period. It is true that the claimant has not filed any appeal for awarding interest, but this is a circumstance with may be taken into consideration while fixing the amount of compensation. It may not be out of place to mention that if the amount of award had been paid to the respondent soon after the making of the award, the respondent would have earned a very substantial amount of interest, the benefit of which has, however, gone to the appellants. Taking this circumstance into consideration along with other factors, which we have narrated above, it cannot be said that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive We are, therefore, not prepared to interfere with the impugned award and dismiss this appeal. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.