KUMARI DEEPTI TIWARI Vs. BANWARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises from a claim for compensation, which was made under Section 110 of that Act. The appellant, a yong girl of 15 years, a student of the 1st Year Science class in the S. B. R. College, Bilaspur, riding a lady bicycle, while returning from the College to her house, was struck from behind by a truck No. M. P. L. 718. She fell down with her bicycle. She was extricated from under the truck where she was lying between the front and the rear wheels. She was removed to the hospital. She sustained a fracture of the spine. She had to remain in the hospital for 3 months. She claimed rs. 8,400 as general damages and Rs. 1,600 as special damages.

(2.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), passed a decree in favour of the applicant for Rs. 1,250, that is Rs. 500 as special damages and Rs. 750 as general damages against the third respondent, the Indian Trade and General Insurance Co. The claim was dismissed against the owner, Banwarilal (respondent 1), and the driver of the truck, Cornalious (respondent 2 ). The applicant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the general damages awarded to her by Rs. 7,660 and has prayed for a decree for the Rs. 8,910. All the three non-applicants, that is, the owner and driver of the truck as also the Insurance Co. have been made respondents in this appeal, so that if it is found that the insurance Co. (respondent 3) is liable for a lesser amount, the other respondents may be held liable for the balance. There is no appeal by the non-applicants or any of them.

(3.) THE Tribunal has found that the applicant was involved in the accident; that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently when it gave her a dash from behind and it caused the accident; that she sustained fracture of the spine, i. e. , the 4th lumber vertebra that she was put under a plaster jacket for about three months; and thereafter a fortnight was spent in rehabilitating her; that she could not attend her college from 5-10-1959 to 20-1-1960; that, consequently, she could not pass the annual examination that year; and that no permanent disability has been caused to her. It is unnecessary to give the details of the special damages which were partly allowed by the Tribunal and about which there is no dispute in this appeal.