Karnataka High Court
Kumari Sneha vs National Insurance Company Limited, ... on 17 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ862, ILR2000KAR2792, 2000(6)KARLJ40
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is taken up with the consent of the parties.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.V.C. No. 1754 of 1993. The appellant challenges the finding on the issue with regard to negligence and for enhancement of compensation.
3. The injured in this case was a minor child of 6 years old. The Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 41,000/-. However the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company and the owner were not liable since the negligence was not proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal forgot that as far as the minor children are concerned, the question of negligence need not be strictly proved. The Tribunal erred in holding that negligence will have to be strictly proved in the case of a minor child.
5. In this case, admittedly the child was hardly 6 years old and the child was crossing the road with the help of a maid servant when the accident occurred. There was a duty cast on the driver of the vehicle to drive the vehicle cautiously.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of this Court in Sundara Shetty v Sanjeeva Rao and Others. At paragraph 28, this Court held as follows.-
"28. The facts of the present case demanded greater care on the part of the driver of the car because children of tender years cannot even be imputed with contributory negligence. They have not attained the age of discretion and what generally the adults can understand as rash or negligent acts cannot even be imputed to them as they are not in a position to understand the consequences of their acts. Many dangers which are open and obvious to the adults may be concealed and secret traps for the children. Hence, when a driver drives in the school zone, there is a greater responsibility cast on him to see that the speed of his vehicle is so controlled as to be able to stop the vehicle within a moment's notice. It is for that reason that we hold that the driver of the car, on his own showing, was rash and negligent in driving the car, which resulted in the accident, on the facts of the present case".
7. Following the judgment of this Court and for the reasons stated therein the appeal is allowed and I hold that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable. To that extent the order of the Tribunal is modified.
8. So far as the enhancement is concerned, no ground is made out to interfere to enhance the compensation.
9. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount stipulated by the Tribunal as compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order with interest at 6%.