UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Union of India against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 36,700/- to the respondent. There is a cross-objection by the respondent for the enhancement of compensation. The facts in brief are that on 15-9-1974, the claimant met with an accident at about 9.05 a.m. when a Military truck of the Kumaun Regimental Centre, Ranikhet coming from the Globe Cinema side ran him over injuring his leg seriously. The petitioner was a sweeper drawing a sum of Rs. 150/- per month from the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. The claimant was immediately taken to the Military Hospital, Ranikhet from where he was shifted to the Civil Hospital at Ranikhet. Later on he had to be removed to B.D. Pandey Hospital at Nainital where he remained under treatment for about three months. His left leg bad to be amputated from the root in order to save his life. The claimant thereafter came back to Ranikhet and remained under the treatment of Dr. D.S. Bangari from 19-11-1974 to 13-7-1976.

(2.) THE defence was that the claim petition was incompetent as the claimant was a minor on the date of the petition; that the petition was beyond time; that the amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and that be was entitled to a sum of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- only by way of compensation. However, in the written statement, the factum of accident and that the claimant had received injuries was not disputed.

(3.) ON Issue No. 1, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver. I have gone through the record and the evidence adduced by the parties. It is admitted to the driver Khim Singh that the brakes had failed and the vehicle had not been examined about its road worthiness. is, therefore, clear that there was obvious negligence on the part of the driver to take out the vehicle which had not been properly checked about its road worthiness. Nothing could be shown by the learned Counsel from the record so that the court may take a different view than what has been taken by the Claims Tribunal. It is, therefore, held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle and the appellant is liable for the same.