Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 35 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Anubhooti alias Eena

2022-01-06

K.J.THAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. By way of this appeal, the State has felt aggrieved by the award of compensation to the respondent on 11.1.1991 at 5.00 p.m. lost the compensation sought was Rs. 2,27,560/- for injuries caused to the minor who filed the claim petition through legal guardian. 3. The facts as they culled out from the record are as follows: “That on 11.1.1991 at 5.00 p.m. Km. Anubhuti was playing on her tiny tricycle at the gate of resident No. 5-B Upadhaya Colony, Civil Lines, Rampur. The respondent Ram Sagar Divedi driving jeep no. US V 3071 belonging to soil conservation department of Rampur District of the Govt. of U.P. rashly and negligently hit the claimant, who sustained grievous heed injury and violent nervous shock. She was shifted to the District Hospital, Rampur where doctors attending on her advised her shifting to AIIMS, New Delhi or any other nursing home with specialist doctors for treatment but there she could not get admission. She was taken to Sahgals Neurological Research Institute, New Delhi for treatment. The grievous head injury allegedly rendered her mentally affirm and permanently disabled. Therefore, she could not be married and would have to depend on her family. A sum of Rs. 10,27,560/- has been sought as compensation on different heads as detailed in the petition.” 4. Respondent No. 3, namely, driver of the vehicle did not contest the litigation the jeep it was alleged the jeep was not involved in the incident in question and the jeep could not have been used by the driver as there was entry in the log book. The tribunal raised issues and granted a sum of Rs. 2,27,560/- with a rate of interest 12% it is this that as aggrieved the State authorities. 5. The factual scenario goes to show that the log book entry and the Soil Conservation Officer tried to help the appellant. However the tribunal has considered the judgment of the Apex Court titled Sita Ram Moti Lal vs. Santasu Prasad Jai Shanker Bhutt, 1966 ACC 89 (SC) the fact that the vehicle belonged to the Soil Corporation and was being driven by authorized person and is involved in the accident which is proved by documentary evidence. 6. The negligence is proved and involvement is also proved. 6. The negligence is proved and involvement is also proved. The driver never stepped into the witness box, child is a third party and, therefore, also this Court cannot take a different view then that taken by the tribunal which was relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in H.P. Road Transport Corporation Shimla vs. Naem and Another, 1987 ACJ 642 . 7. In view of the matter, the compensation as awarded to the minor cannot be said to be exorbitant for the following reasons: (i) the child has suffered grave injuries. (ii) the tribunal has considered her condition and has held that though the multiplier is of the higher side that she would not be able to earn in future. 8. The amount of Rs. 2,27,560/- for the injuries caused to the minor even in those days cannot be said to be such which requires any interference. 9. The interim relief shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be deposited however with interest at the rate of 9% to that extent. 10. The amount kept in fixed deposit shall be released in favour of minor who by now must have attained majority. 11. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall stands partly allowed.