NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. MINOR RAMANBHAI FULABHAI BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10-9-1977 Ramanbhai Fulabhai (a minor the appellant) had gone to the field of Ramchandra Fulabhai Pandya (Respondent No. 2) for labour work for agricultural purpose. At about 5-30 P.M. he was returning in a tractor driven by Babubhai alias Abdulbhai Daudbhai Vohra (respondent No. 1) and belonging to respondent No. 2 to unload the contents of the trailer at the house of respondent No. 2. It was the case of the appellant that the tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No. 1 there occurred a big jolt on account of which the appellant Ramanbhai who was sitting at the rear of the trailer fell down was crushed under the wheels of the trailer and sustained serious injuries resulting into permanent disability. The appellant filed a claim application through his guardian and next friend Fulabhai Ganesh Bhoi bearing No. 53 of 1978 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kaira at Nadiad and claimed a sum of Rs. 30 0 which vide Exh. 36 was later raised to Rs. 90 0 In the same claim application appellant impleaded the driver of the tractor as respondent No. 1 the owner of the tractor as respondent No. 2 and the insurer of the tractor namely the National Insurance Company as respondent No. 3. 3 The respondents resisted the claim made by the appellant and contended that the accident on account of which the appellant suffered injuries was not caused by the negligence of respondent No. 1 but that the appellant himself was responsible for its occurrence. It was also con. tended that the claim was grossly exaggerated and that the minor did not suffer any permanent disability. On behalf of the Insurance Company respondent No. 3 it was contended that it was not liable to compensate for the occurrence of the accident as the appellant was travelling by a vehicle which was primarily meant for carrying goods and not passengers. It was also contended that the appellant was injured by the negligence of a co-employee. It was also contended that it will not be liable as the risk was not specifically covered under the policy. ... ... ... ... ... ...

(2.) We shall confine ourselves only to the question of the adequancy of compensation payable to the appellant Ramanbhai Fulabhai Bhoi.

(3.) Ramanbhai (aged about 17 at the time of his deposition) deposed before the Tribunal and stated that he was crushed under the wheel of the trailer after he fell down from the trailer. He was injured on his pelvic region. He was treated for two months at Nadiad and thereafter intermittently at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad for a total period of eight months. Even by that time the appellant was neither cured nor did he stop the treatment. He stated that even on the day on which he was giving his deposition his treatment continued under Dr. Jeswani. The appellant has stated that he is unable to micturate and is required to keep a pouch and a catheter. He has also stated that he continued to suffer pain even till the date of his deposition. He stated further that he was required to get the catheter changed every 15 days and that each time it cost him Rs. 50.00. He has stated that his father had already spent about Rs. 3 0 for his treatment. Till the date of deposition the appellant was not married. It is very relevant to observe that on behalf of the respondents not a single question was asked to the appellant challenge his veracity so far as the deposition in connection with the injuries and the consequent sufferings by the appellant were concerned. We have therefore no reason to discard the appellants statement that although the treatment was protracted for over eight months he was not cured of the injuries due to which he suffered so much.