VIJAYKUMAR ARVINDSINH RAOLIJI Vs. RAMANBHAI CHATURBHAI RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 0 Present First Appeal is filed by one Vijaykumar Arvindsinh Raoliji through his next friend and guardian Shri Arvindsinh Madhavsinh Raoliji (father) being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 18th October 1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Baroda in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 5 of 1982. The learned Tribunal was pleased to award and amount of Rs.1,77,925/ - together with proportionate costs and running interest @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of application till realization from both the opponents, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

(2.) 0 The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that on 9th July 1981 at about 2:15 p.m. near village Sakarda, the applicant - a child aged about 05 years, named Vijaykumar with his father Arvindsinh Madhavsinh Raoliji and his mother, were sitting under a 'Bunyan' tree. At that time, an S.T. Bus bearing Registration No. GTE -5301 came with excessive and uncontrollable speed, rashly and negligently driven by opponent No. 1. The driver was unable to control the offending vehicle with the result, the offending bus ran towards the claimant on the wrong side of the road and caused an accident. The child Vijaykumar sustained severe bodily injuries on the head and various other parts of the body.

(3.) 0 The present First Appeal is filed seeking enhancement of amount of compensation to Rs.4 lakh i.e. an additional amount of Rs.2,22,075/ -. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for the appellant vehemently submitted that this is one case, wherein, even awarding of full amount of compensation of Rs.4 lakh will not be sufficient inasmuch as the life of the child aged 05 years is rendered so miserable that no amount of compensation can mitigate the misery, which are fallen on a boy of 05 years. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the boy was required to be operated more than once and was subject to gradual amputation of leg on account of increasing complications and finally, his leg was amputated very close to the hip joint. Not only that, on account of injuries sustained on head, he lost vision of one eye and the vision in the other eye was so impaired that he was not able to see beyond the distance of 10 to 15 feet and as it is brought on record by the deposition of Doctor Ms. DM Desai - exh. 79, the boy was able to count fingers at a distance of 03 feet with the help of glasses. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal is right in referring to various decisions in Para 26 in which, the Tribunal has quoted the Head Note, wherein, it is observed that, "the claimant is left with a totally defunct life which is worse than death and which resembles an empty egg -shell with its contents taken out".