NIDHI SINGH Vs. KALICHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an accident occurred on 18.3.1993 involving a motor-cycle bearing no. RRA 7323 driven by respondent Kalicharan son of Dilawar Singh rashly and negligently, the claimant appellant, a young girl of 11 years at the time of accident, sustained compound fracture of her right leg and other injuries on the left leg resulting in permanent disability of her lower limb shortening by ?", preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short to be referred as, 'the Tribunal') which vide its judgment and award dated 30.3.1999 awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that on 18.3.1993 in the noon while the appellant-claimant was standing near Devi Nagar Mod, Jaipur, at that time from Sodala side a motor cycle bearing no. RRA 7323 came at fast speed being driven rashly and negligently hit the appellant as a result of which she sustained injuries on her legs. In all compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- was claimed. The respondent no.1 who was driving the motor cycle did not appear before the learned Tribunal, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him. On behalf of respondent no.2- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reply to the claim petition was filed wherein several objections were raised. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed three issues in support of the claim petition. The appellantclaimant examined herself as AW-1 and three other witnesses namely; Maharaj Singh, Gaurav Singh and Dr. M.K.Mathur and three documents were tendered in evidence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in all awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- along with interest as stated here-in-above.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel that the young girl of 11 years of age has sustained permanent disability of 18% and under non-pecuniary and pecuniary head a sum of Rs.6,000/- each has been awarded which is at lower side. It is contended that in fact the learned Tribunal finding that the injury by which the leg was shortened by ?" was grievous in nature, therefore, it was not proper to award compensation of Rs.6,000/-. According to the learned counsel in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others- 1995 A.C.J. 366, the learned Tribunal was required to consider the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages sustained by the claimants. It has been contended that the learned tribunal has awarded compensation at the lower side which needs to be enhanced. It is also contended that with the disability the girl shall have to live throughout her life and on account of shortening of her leg by ?", she cannot play any games and there will be difficulty in finding suitable match for her.