CHIEF SECRETARY Vs. VEERBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, dated 7th July, 1977.

(2.) THE facts relevant briefly are that on March 30, 1972 at about 1.30 P.M. the respondent No. 1 was going on foot on the kachcha patri at the Meerut-Delhi Road in Modinagar Bazar. She was proceeding towards her house A truck belonging to the State of U.P. (Irrigation Department) came up with a high speed and swered over her right side whereby multiple injuries were caused to the respondent. The left hand of the respondent was permanently impaired. A claim for damages under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was lodged on October 20, 1972. The delay in filing the claim has been condoned by the Tribunal. The chief Secretary, Government of U.P. was arrayed as a party besides the Secretary (Irrigation) U.P. The Executive Engineer, Tubewell, and the Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Meerut, were also arrayed as the opposite parties. On February 28, 1975 there was an application made to implead the State of U.P. as well as one of the opposite parties which was allowed. The Tribunal considered the evidence of both sides and came to the finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the opposite party No. 5, the driver on the truck aforesaid. It was found also that as a result thereof the left hand of the respondent was permanently impaired and the utility was lost by 50%. The age of the respondent being so, it was held that if the accident had not occurred, she may have contributed for another fifteen years at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month to the family. Her earning from sewing has been estimated at nearly Rs. 60/- per month. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,400/- in all by way of compensation with a finding that a sum of Rs. 2 000/- was incurred in treatment; a sum of Rs. 5,400/- has been estimated as the loss of contribution to the income of the family and the rest 3,000/- has been awarded as general damages.

(3.) IN so far as the contention that the respondent No. 1 be said to be guilty of contributory negligence is concerned, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest any negligence on her part. Respondent No. 1 was a pedestrian as found on the strength of her own testimony besides two other eye-witnesses moving on the Kachcha patri towards the left of the road. The truck came from the other side and swayed over to its right being driven negligently or rashly thereby permanently impairing the left hand of the respondent No. 1 No question of contributory negligence on her part in this situation arises.