AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 431 wordsAmarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This order will dispose of the appeal as well as the cross-objection arising from the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal.
Baljit minor through his parents filed claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming rupees one lac as compensation for the injuries caused to him in a vehicular accident on 5.9.1983. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition. Aggrieved against the award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that left leg of claimant Baljit was crushed under the front wheel of bus No. HYC 688 which was being driven by Inderaj Singh respondent. Left leg of Baljit was amputated causing disability to the vital limb to the extent of 70 per cent. The plea taken by the claimant is that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by Inderaj, its driver.
In this case the Tribnnal had returned a categoric finding that Baljit had suffered injury on account of rash and negligent driving of bus of Haryana Roadways No. HYC 688. It is also the categoric finding that amputation of the leg had occasioned because of the accident.
In the case in hand, the only question which requires consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the disability of the claimant and involvement of the vehicle in question are not in dispute. The negligence attributed to Inderaj Singh respondent has been duly established. Claimant Baljit has been crippled, throughout his life. He would not be able to resume normal walk for the rest of his life He would not be able to walk without crutches had to spend a lot of money on the crutches and artificial limb. The amputation of leg must have caused him unbearable pain and suffering.
Taking into consideration the abovementioned factors, I am of the view that a lumpsum compensation of rupees one lac for permanent disability as a result of amputation of one leg, pain & suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of prospects in life, medicine expenses and expenses incurred on getting artificial limb, would meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. The claimants shall also be entitled to 12% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization.
The appeal stand allowed with costs as indicated above. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. Cross-Objections are dismissed being without any merit.
