TINSUKHIA FLOUR MILLS TINSUKHIA ASSAM Vs. SHIV PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 from the award dated 27th Oct., 1971 by the Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Member directed that an amount of Rs. 55,000/- be paid to the respondent Shivprakash as damages on account of the injuries caused to him in the course of an accident, which took place on 25-7-1968 in the city of Jaipur, while the said respondent was being carried on the carrier of a cycle driven by his servant. The respondent's case, as set out in the claim petition, was that while he was being taken on the carrier of the cycle by his servant Ratanlal from Gujarati Samaj School, the motor car No. A.S.E. 4105 belonging to M/s. Tinsukhia Flour Mills, which was being driven by Prabhu Dayal, dashed against the cycle on the wrong side, as a result of which the respondent fell down and was run over by one of the wheels of the car. As a result of the impact of the car, the left leg of the said respondent was crushed. The respondent was thereafter taken to the hospital and on the advice of the Surgeons his leg had to be amputated the same day. He claimed Rs. 1,15,000/ as compensation. In support of his claim, the respondent Shiv-prakash examined himself as PW 1, his servant Katanlal (PW 2), who was taking the respondent on the cycle, Suraj-prakash (PW 3), father of the injured, and Dr. S. M. Dugar (PW 4). The opposite parties, viz., the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle and the driver did not produce any evidence in rebuttal.

(2.) The learned Member of the Tribunal held that it was due to the rash and negligent "driving of the vehicle that the accident took place and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to get compensation. As regards the quantum of damages, the learned Member awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of expenses for treatment and in addition to that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded in a lump-sum on account of, pain, mental suffering and permanent physical disability suffered by the respondent.

(3.) The only point urged by Mr. B. P. Gupta in support of this appeal is that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded on account of disability suffered by the respondent is excessive and deserves to be suitably reduced. He has submitted that no material has been placed on the record for assessment of the damages and the mere fact that the respondent was 14 years old and studying in the school at the time of the accident and that his left leg had to be amputated does not warrant award of exemplary damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha, 1976 Acc CJ 261 : (AIR 1976 Kant 146).