Aarti vs Pritam Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—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/ u/s 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/- u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

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.

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 :-

Whether on 5.5.1984 at about 2 PM respondent Not 1 caused the accident in question by driving rashly and negligently Fiat Car No. CHA 871 from the road in the area of Sector 18-B, Chandigarh, resulting in the injuries in question to the claimant petitioner ? OP

If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimant-petitioner is entitled and from whom of the respondents? OPP

Whether respondent No. 1 held a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? If not, what its effect ? OPR-1.

Relief

The claimant in order to prove her case, besides herself, examined Amarjit Singh PW 2, A. S. I. Prem Singh PW 3 Roshna Lal Julka PW 4, Dr. Shivinder Singh Gill, Lecturer in Orthopaedics, PGI Chandigarh, Gurdial Singh PW 5, Nazir PW 7 her own grand- father K. C. Puri PW 8 and Rajinder Bansal PW 9.

On the other hand, Pritam Singh respondent No. 3 has stepped into the witness box as RW 1.

In this appeal, the challenge is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the gravity of the injuries and the factum of the accident which were caused by rash and negligent driving of the ear by pritam, Singh.

I have perused the paper book and find that the claimant has produced sufficient evidence to prove that; the offending vehicle was at fault and no negligence ''of any kind could be attributed to tie injured claimant. By no stretch of imagination the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident can be ; doubted. The statement of the claimant was also "supported by her mother Veena Puri, her father''s sister Mrs. Ish Singh. Claimant''s father, Raghbir Singh''s statement is also there on the basis of which DDR No. 33, dared 5.5.1984 copy whereof is Exhibit P-7 was recorded A.S.I. Prem Singh P. W. 3 had deposed that on arrival at the PGI after getting information about the accident in question he first recorded the claimants'' father''s statement and then Pritam Singh driver''s statement at the PGI. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the involvement of the offending vehicle stands proved A duty is cast upon a driver of the vehicle to be cautious while driving, a vehicle particularly when school children are .crossing the road. .

Dr Shivinder Singh Gill, Lecturer in Orthopaedics, PGI, Chandigarh, had deposed that he medically treated Aarti in the Orthopaedics Emergency of the PGI. She was having fracture of both the bones and she was put under plaster. She again visited hospital on 15 5-1984 after her initial visit on 5-5-1984 The plaster was removed on 7-8-1984. The Doctor further stated that he again examined the patient on 3-12-1985 when she came again. The patient was having functional disability in extreme degrees of flexion and extension of left knees arid left/ankle. The fracture of both the bones of her leg was then found to have been united, but she was having slight values deformity of left leg. Her permanent disability was assessed as 10%

Shri K. C. Puri had stated that Rs. 1,500/- were spent on medical treatment arid transport. She still cannot walk, properly because of the after affect''s of her leg injury. In rainy season she complains of pain in her left leg. She had set back in her studies as she could not pursue the studies for about three months on account of the injuries by her in the accident.

Taking into consideration the statements of the Doctor and appellant''s father, the extent of disability and expenses incurred on medical treatment, I am of the considered view that the claimant deserves compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with 12% interest from the date of claim petition shall meet the ends of justice and it is ordered accordingly. The amount of compensation granted is inclusive of the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.