AYESHA BEGUM Vs. G. VEERAPPAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Tiruchirapalli awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the Appellant in CM A. No. 28 of 1963 who was involved in an accident caused by the lorry belonging to the first Respondent, G. Veerappan, and which has been insured with the second Respondent, Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Madras.

(2.) APPELLANT , minor Ayesha Begum, aged about 5 1/2 years, is the daughter of P.K. Mohamed Yusuf, residing at 105, East Boule -ward Road, Tiruchirapalli. On 16 -8 -1961 at about 1 p.m., while she was returning from her school, she was hit and injured by the lorry, M.D.Y. 3439. The actual incident was witnessed by P.W. 7, Subba Rao, who is keeping a betel -nut shop opposite to the Gosha Hospital, where the accident occurred. The evidence of P.W. 7 is that, when the child was proceeding to her house from the school keeping to the left side of the road, the lorry M.D.Y. 3439 came from south to north very fast without sounding the horn and hit the child by throwing her down. His evidence is that there was no other vehicle on the road at the time of the occurrence and that the width of the road is more then 30 feet. According to him, the driver of the lorry did not apply the brakes to stop the lorry and went away even after knocking down the girl and had to be stopped by one Karunakaran. Soon after the accident, P.W. 1, the father of the girl, was informed of the accident by P.W. 6, a clerk in the Tiruchi Vysya Bank. P.W. 1 took the girl and admitted her in the Headquarters. Hospital, Tiruchirappalli. P.W. 5, Dr. Bashrudeen, examined her, and, suspecting fracture, directed X -ray photos of the thigh and hip joint to be taken. P.W. 5 Dr. Bashrudeen has stated that there was dislocation of pelvic bone as shown in the X -ray photos, Exs. A 3 and A 4. He further said that hit by a vehicle like the lorry was likely to cause the fracture. As the stay in the hospital did not do her any good, P.W. 1. took her to P.W. 2, Dr. V.K. Ranganathan, a medical practitioner of 18 years' standing, who found fracture, dislocation of the right sacroiliac joint and dislocation of the symphysis pubis. He advised that the child should be shown to an Orthopedic Specialist. P.W. 1, therefore, brought the child to Madras and showed her to one Dr. Natarajan, an Orthopedic specialist. The doctor advised a course of treatment for the child. P.W. l's evidence is that she is unable to walk or run freely and is crippled. Thus it has been established that the child was involved in a lorry accident and sustained an injury. The Tribunal (District Judge) found the child limping and having a big belt around her hip. The Tribunal found that the injury was the result of an accident brought about by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the first Respondent.

(3.) AGAINST this order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, minor Ayesha Begum has filed CM A. No. 28 of 1963, for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, the second Respondent in the lower Court, has filed CM.A. No. 117 of 1963 contending that the amount awarded is arbitrary and based on a rough and ready estimate.