SUSHILA PANDEY Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under s. MOD of the M.V. Act, 1939, is directed against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, dated September 28, 1976, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the claimant, Km. Sushila Pandey, for the injuries received by her in a motor accident.

(2.) Km. Sushila Pandey, a young girl of 11 years of age, student of class VI in the Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Muthiganj, Allahabad, was returning from her school on August 10, 1972. When she was in front of the Nagar Mahapalika Primary School on Lowther Road in Mohalla Muthiganj of Allahabad City, she was knocked down by a motor car No. ASE 3620, owned and driven by C. P. Mittal, Assistant Engineer. Temporary Division, National Highway, District Fatehpur. She received serious injuries, and she was rushed to the hospital where she remained confined for a long period. Even after the long treatment, she could not be normal, instead she became permanently disabled. Her body below her waist became paralyzed. She filed a claim petition under Section 110A of the Act through her relation, Sri Amar Nath, claiming a sum of Rs. 83,000 as compensation for the injuries received by her. The owner of the car filed a written statement denying his liability to pay any damages. He pleaded that he had been driving the vehicle with care in slow speed and was not guilty of any rash and negligent driving of the car. The girl all of a sudden made an attempt to cross the road and in that process she struck against the car. He further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by Km. Sushila Pandey was highly exaggerated. It appears that initially the insurance company was not impleaded as an opposite party to the claim petition but later when the claimant came to know the particulars of the insurer, she got the claim petition amended by impleading the New India Assurance Co. as one of the opposite parties to the claim petition. The insurance company also filed written statement and contested the claim petition.

(3.) On appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the owner, who was himself driving the car, was guilty of rash and negligent driving as a result of which the claimant received serious injuries. Placing reliance on the testimony of the Mechanical Inspector, who had examined the vehicle soon after the accident, the Tribunal held that the owner had been driving the car in a busy locality with defective brakes. The owner lost control over the vehicle and knocked down the claimant and, as such, he was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000 for the injuries caused to her. Aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. No cross-objection or appeal has been preferred either by the owner or by the insurance company.