SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHAARWAR Vs. NIKHIL BINDURAO GALAGALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Superintendent of Police, Dharwar, and the Karnataka Govt Insurance Dept, under S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. They are aggrieved by the award of compensation for injuries received by the claimant, who is a school going boy of eight years, in Mis (MVC) Case 15 of 1971 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwar (District Judge)

(2.) The vehicle involved is a prison van in charge of the Police, used for the conveyance of the under trial prisoners between the jail and the Court, in addition to its use by the police personnel This vehicle had been registered in the name of the Supt of Police of the Dist concerned. The boy was a student attending a school near the cotton market of Hubli It would appear that at the spot there were schools on either side of the road and as a result of their situation, two signboards had been put up within a reasonable distance of the schools, proclaiming that the area between the boards was a 'school zone'. On 30-1-1971, at about mid-day, the Injured boy was crossing the road from one side of the footpath to the other, after alighting frm a bus. In doing so, he followed 2 or 3 other students who also were crossing the road and had in fact crossed it. While doing so and when he was half-way across, the van belonging to the Police Dept dashed against him causing grieivous lacerated injuries, which will be specified at a later stage. Thereupon, the boy was removed to the hospital and had to star in the hospital as an inpatient up to 8-4-1971. He had also to undergo two operations of skin grafting in the course of his stay there. As a result of his having been hospitalised he had also to forego the examination of that year. It is in respect of this accident that the claim had been preferred for a sum of Rs.40,000 by way of compensation. The defence of the appellants herein was that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and that the van was engaged in performing the sovereign services of the State, and therefore was not liable to submit to the claim made

(3.) The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence led, came to the conclusion that the van had not been employed in the course of performing sovereign duties of the State and that the accident was the result of nesgligene of the driver of the vehicle. But while assessing compensation it took all the circumstances into consideration and assessed the same in a lumpsum of Rs. 10,000 and made an award accordingly. Hence this appeal.