SANTOSH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON March 16, 1981, in the morning hours, Vijay Kumar, a school going child of six years, was run over by truck No. HRG 4828, owned by Ram Saran and driven by Paras Ram near Badshahpur town on the main highway. His left leg was ultimately amputated above the knee. The minor child through his next friend claimed Rs. 1 lakh in the claim application filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for short "the Tribunal". The claim application was contested by the driver and owner of the truck by filing a joint written statement. The New India Assurance Company with which the truck was insured filed a separate written statement. One of the additional points raised was that the liability, if any, of the company was limited to Rs. 50,000. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the petitioner, Vijay Kumar, sustained injuries in an accident caused by rash, negligent and careless driving of truck No. HRG 4828, driven by Paras Ram, respondent No. 1 ? (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, its amount and against whom ? (3) Relief.

(2.) AFTER evidence was led, the Tribunal by a well-considered award dated November 4, 1982, awarded Rs. 87,840 with 6 per cent, per annum interest. Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 31,800 were ordered to be paid to the next friend of the minor to reimburse him for the expenses of the treatment, for his maintenance and for providing artificial limb. The rest of the amount was to be deposited so as to earn interest with a direction that the deposited amount was to be paid to the minor on his attaining majority. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000 with proportionate costs and interest. Against the aforesaid award, FAO No. 62 of 1983 has been filed by the legal representatives of the owner of the truck in which cross-objections have been filed by the claimants and FAO No. 130 of 1983 has been filed by the insurance company. Since they arise out of the same proceedings and the same award of the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) ON behalf of the owners of the truck and the assurance company, the following common points were raised : (1) That the driver of the truck was not negligent; (2) That the left leg of the claimant was not amputated although he had suffered injury in that leg ; and (3) In case it is found that the left leg was not amputated as a result of the injury suffered in the accident, the award of the court below is highly excessive. Even if it is proved that the left leg was amputated, even then the award is on the high side.