Skip to content


Ram Kumari Sharma Vs. Ram Kishan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC497
AppellantRam Kumari Sharma
RespondentRam Kishan and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....kot rejecting the application of the appellant claiming rs. 30,000/- as damages for death of geeta rani, daughter of the appellant, geeta rani aged 7 years, when she was crossing the road, was run over by the truck and died on the spot. the learned judge held that geeta ram was negligent for her death and not the river and therefore, the application was rejected. in my opinion, the finding of the learned judge is wrong. when a child is involved in the accident it is no answer to say that the child was negligent. i can understand an adult contributing to the negligence causing death or accident, but to say a child aged 7 years was negligent and therefore, the driver cannot be blamed is to say the least preposterous. it is always the duty of the driver to be vigilant whether on the.....
Judgment:

P.K. Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kot rejecting the application of the appellant claiming Rs. 30,000/- as damages for death of Geeta Rani, daughter of the appellant, Geeta Rani aged 7 years, when she was crossing the road, was run over by the truck and died on the spot. The learned Judge held that Geeta Ram was negligent for her death and not the river and therefore, the application was rejected. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Judge is wrong. When a child is involved in the accident it is no answer to say that the child was negligent. I can understand an adult contributing to the negligence causing death or accident, but to say a child aged 7 years was negligent and therefore, the driver cannot be blamed is to say the least preposterous. It is always the duty of the driver to be vigilant whether on the road there is a child crossing the road and that is why the road signs are always there when the children of the schools are crossing road. If the driver would have been vigilant, the death would not have been caused. I, therefore, held that the death was caused by the negligence of the driver and therefore, the Insurance Company is certainly liable. On this premise the matter could have been sent back for rehearing, but as the matter is old one of 1972 and the accident occurred as far as back in 1969, the agony will only be increased if the case is referred back to the Court below for assessment of quantum. In my opinion, the girl was seven year old and was not an earning member at that time, we can assess the compensation as a guess work only and on the basis of that I think the claim of appellant who has claimed Rs. 5,000/- for deprivation of Geeta Rani should be accepted and another Rs. 2,000/- for the mental agony and pain suffered by the mother of Geeta Rani on account of her death. Therefore, the Insurance Company must pay Rs. 7,000/- with interest from her date of application for compensation till payment at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.


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