LAWS(DLH)-1972-10-8

SUNIL KUMAR Vs. ROSHAN LAL

Decided On October 09, 1972
SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
V/S
ROSHAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two cross-appeals, FAO 24-D of 1966, and FAO 80 D of 1966, directed against judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which have arisen in the following circumstances :

(2.) On August 14, 1964, Sunil Kumar, herein referred to as 'the appellant', who at that time was six years of age, was involved in an accident with a DTU bus, bearing registration No. DLP 251, owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 2, and Delhi Transport Undertaking (now Delhi Transport Corporation), herein referred to as 'respondent No. 3' which at the time of the accident was driven by the driver, respondent No. 1. The accident took place at about 11.45 a.m. on the East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as a result of which the appellant received severe injuries and was rushed to Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, where his right leg above the knee had to be amputated. The appellant filed his claim through his next friend, his father, M. L. Dhingra, for a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 as compensation on account of injuries received on his person. The accident was said to be the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1, the driver. The appellant claimed that he had lost chance of becoming an Engineer or being appointed a gazetted officer or joining the military service and marrying in a good family. The entire future life of the appellant was said to have been ruined as he had been rendered a permanent dependent on others. The respondents, however, denied negligence on the part of the driver and stated that the bus was proceeding on the East Park Road from Rohtak Road side towards Filmastan cinema. When it reached the crossing of the Gali Purana Shidipura, the appellant came all of a sudden running from the side of the Gali to cross the main road along with certain other school children. Ignoring the approach of the bus, the appellant is said to have struck against its right rear portion and was thrown off.

(3.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, respondent No. 1. It also held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 2,989.00 towards special damages and Rs. 10,000.00 towards general damages for personal suffering and loss of enjoyment of life and probable future loss of income. The petitioner was thus held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 12,989.00 and an award was made for that amount in appellants favour against the respondents with costs,