R UPENDRA Vs. A GOVARDHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.663 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, dated 23-01-1998. The petitioner before the Tribunal was involved in a motor accident on 30-08- 1993 at about 4 P.M. when lorry A.P. 13T 878, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against him, while he was going by walk at Bandameedi Chandupatla village. The petitioner, aged 10 years, was returning from the school and suffered a crush injury on the left leg and injuries on the hands and other parts of the body. The petitioner was also working as labourer earning Rs.20/- per day and is the only son to his parents and immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government hospital, Suryapet and then to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where the left leg was amputated. Hence, he sued the owner and the insurer of the lorry for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of the permanent disability suffered. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte, while the insurer contested the claim putting the petitioner to strict proof of all his allegations and denying the claims made by him.

(2.) The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation from the respondents. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.B.1 were marked.

(3.) The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 1, the injured and his mother, corroborated by the first information report Ex.A.1 and the copy of charge-sheet Ex.A.2 and concluding, in the absence of any evidence for the respondents, that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry was the cause for the accident. The Tribunal went on to note that the physical observation of the petitioner in open Court showed that there was amputation of left leg, which is corroborated by Exs.A.3, A.4 and A.7. The Tribunal further observed that amputation of the left leg of the young petitioner not only caused permanent disability but also difficulty in earning his livelihood in future and he must have spent much money for treatment and other expenses. The Tribunal also took into account the uncertainty introduced into the life of the petitioner and felt that ends of justice would be met, if a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner. As Ex.B.1 insurance policy was in subsistence, both the respondents were made liable to pay the compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization and proportionate costs.