Bhavna Sharma vs Amanullah and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 20.12.2000 passed by IInd MACT, Neemuch in Claim Case No. 52/1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed the present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was seven years old at the time of accident. It is further submitted that appellant sustained fracture in left leg and on collar bone. It is submitted that no amount has been awarded towards compensation on the ground that it is not proved that accident has taken place by the offending vehicle. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the claim petition, appellant has alleged that accident has taken place by vehicle No. RJ-09C-2872, while in the FIR, it was mentioned as RJ-09-2872. Since, the word ''C was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, learned Tribunal has found that it is not proved that accident has taken place with the offending vehicle. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident father of the appellant was not present who lodged the FIR. It is submitted that accident took place when appellant went in a school trip. It is submitted that father of the appellant was informed by the school authorities about the accident. Thereafter, about the number of the offending vehicle, father of the appellant was informed by A.W.-3. It is submitted that on account of FIR, the offending vehicle was seized by the police authorities and criminal case was also registered against the Driver of the vehicle No. RJ-09C-2872.

Mr. Solanki placed reliance on a decision in the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Raj Pratap Singh and Another, wherein Allahabad High Court has held that, "in a case where several witnesses deposed that accident took place by Corporation Bus No. UTB 2378 which came from the workshop and it was being driven by the named driver. Named driver mentioned that the bus driven by him at that time was bearing No. UTY 2378. Difference in recording was only in third letter, viz., ''B'' was recorded for ''Y'' Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and held that the accident in question did occur in the bus stand compound by the Corporation bus negligently driven by the named driver. Merely on wrong recording of the letter ''B'' for the letter ''Y'' if other evidence is proved on the record that would disentitle the claim of the amount he is entitled to under the said Act."

In the claim petition the number of the vehicle is mentioned as RJ-09C-2872, while in the FIR the word ''C is missing. Since, the father of the appellant who lodged the FIR was not present at the time of accident, therefore, only on account of this minor discrepancy the claim petition could not have been rejected as other evidence was available on record to prove the fact that accident took place by vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-09C-2872.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the accident took place on 8.8.2000, while the FIR was lodged on 13.8.2000, therefore, Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition.

Mr. Solanki submits that accident took place when appellant was in school trip from where information has been given by the school authority that accident has taken place. Father of the appellant went on spot to take care of the appellant and after taking proper treatment and after verifying the number of the vehicle has lodged the complaint. From perusal of record and the evidence delay has been properly explained. The claim should not have been dismissed on this ground alone.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was hospitalized on 8.8.2000 and was discharged on 6.9.2000. It is submitted that from the medical certificate Exhibit P-12 and statement of Dr. Ramesh Dak it is amply proved that disability is of 35.2%.

Mr. Bandan submits that Dr. J.P. Joshi was not a treating doctor. It is submitted that accident took place on 8.8.2000 and appellant was discharged on 6.9.2000. It is submitted that before issuance of certificate no X-ray has taken place, therefore, the medical certificate and evidence of Dr. Joshi is not believable.

After taking into consideration all the evidence on record and looking to the age of the appellant who was minor girl of seven years, disability as shown appears to be doubtful. However, since accident has taken place and appellant was hospitalized and there was a bone injury as the left leg of the appellant was fractured and collar bone was also fractured, therefore appellant is entitled for compensation. Since, there is no medical evidence, therefore, it appears that a sum of Rs. 25,000 is the appropriate compensation.

Thus, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation. This amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The respondents are liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant jointly.

No order as to costs.

C.C. as per rules.