AARTI Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Aarti through her mother and next friend Smt. Veena Puri wife of Shri R. C. Puri for the enhancement of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' on a claim petition awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/ under Section 9 (sic)-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal assessed compensation to the extent of Rs. 14,500/- and also Rs. 500/- by way of expenses of her medical treatment, but found that she is not entitled to any such amount because there was no negligence and as such dismissed the petition under the provisions of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was the case of the claimant that she deserved to have compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which led to the filing of the claim petition are that Arti was aged 10 years at the time of accident. She was a student of 6th Class and was travelling in a school bus. She alighted from the bus and was proceeding to her house when a Fiat Car No CHA 871 came at a high speed from the opposite direction and struck against her. As a result of the impact, the appellant received multiple injuries including fracture of both the bones of her left foreleg. She was shifted to the emergency ward of the P. G. I, where after necessary medical check up she was provided requisite medical aid in the shape of first aid, operation and then her left foreleg was plastered on 5. 5,1984. She was brought home from P. G. I. next day and she remained in great pain for a number of days. The accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the said car by its driver who had not blown any horn. Because of injuries sustained in the accident, she had perforce to remain absent from her school up to end of August, 1984 and was unable to walk properly at the time when this petition was filed. According to the petitioner, she has been rendered permanently disabled and could not pay due attention towards her studies, A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was claimed from Pritam Singh driver of the said car, M/sj Poshak, respondent No. 2, its awner, Tara Chand respondent No. 3, partner of that firm and New India Insurance Company with which the Car stood insured, jointly and severally.

(3.) THE respondents filed the written statement and outrightly denied the factum of accident with the Car in question. The Insurance Company had pleaded that the driver of the car had no valid licence and as such it had no liability to make the payment. The following issues were framed :