KALYANA SUNDARI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the claimant aggrieved by the quantum .of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore city in a claim petition presented by her under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE petitioner who was aged 12 years filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her in an accident involving scooter bearing No. C AE152, on 26.6.1982 at about 9.30 a.m. while she was crossing the 5th Main Road, Sriramapuram, Bangalore. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/ -. The learned Judge awarded a compensation of Rs. 23. 000/ - as general damages and Rs. 1,000/ - towards medical expenses.

(3.) MR . K.T. Gurudev Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too meagre. He submitted even applying the decision of this Court in Samuel's* Case, 1983 ACJ 547 (Karnataka), in which Rs. 40.000/ - was awarded for the claimant whose leg had been amputated, in an accident which had taken place several years earlier to 1983, the learned Judge should have awarded the companion as prayed for by the appellant, as the appellant herself had claimed only a just compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/. 'In support of the contention that atleast a sum of Rs. l ,00,000/ - was the appropriate compensation to be awarded in this case, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court In Pushpa Thakur v. Union of India, 1984 ACJ 559 (SC). That was also a case in which there had been an amputation of the right leg of the claimant therein. The Supreme Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/ -, the learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.2438 of 1983;decidedon 12.12.1985 in which a compensation of Rs. l ,00,000/ - was awarded to the claimant therein which was also a case of amputation of right leg. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is sound for the entire prospects and career in life of the appellant have stood frustrated by the amputation of leg which was a result of the accident.