Madras High Court
R.S.R.T.C. vs Kiran Bala on 5 December, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1(1989)ACC222
JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, J.
1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur has filed this appeal against the Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bikaner dated 28-2-1984 passed in case No. 2 of 1981.
2. Kumari Kiranbala has filed cross objections for increase of the amount of compensation allowed by the learned Tribunal.
3. I have heard Mr. M.D. Purohit, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.R'. Singhi, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
4. From the record, it appears that due to rashness and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Driver, the accident was caused in which the minor girl received injuries on both of her legs.
5. The girl Kumari Kiranbala was going on her cycle. The Bus of the Corporation collided with her. So far as the appeal filed by the Corporation is concerned, on a thoughtful consideration of the entire material. I am convinced that it has got no merit as the finding of rashness and negligent driving of the Bus has been given on a just and proper appreciation of the evidence and it suffers from no infirmity.
6. Now, the question is whether the compensation allowed to the minor girl Kumari Kiranbala is inadequate looking to the injuries caused.
7. According to the statement of PW 3 Dr. R.N. Mathur, he examined the girl on 9-8-1980 and found two lacerated wounds on her thighs. He has done screen grafting. Whether there was a fracture or not has not been established by this Doctor. He has advised Kumari Kiranbala to get operations conducted. Her both thighs have been disfigured permanently. According to the Doctor, the chances of her marriage have also become very dim and difficult. The statement of the Doctor has been recorded in Hindi Deonagari script. The Court has used the word (Baywa) but Mr. Singhi is correct when he submits that it must be (Byaw) (Marriage) as (Baywa) in the context makes no sense. (Byaw) is a Marwari word and it has been written in Hindi Deonagari script and it means 'Marriage' in English language. Mr. Singhi submits that the girl has not been able to marry till now and her thighs have been permanently disfigured. The Doctor has verified that she cannot sit properly and she will not be able to sit with cross-legs (Palithi). She can sit on her heals. This evidence is unrebutted and corroborated by oral evidence.
8. Mr. M.D. Purohit, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even if these injuries were caused, they are of such a nature that there would be no permanent impediment of her normal working.
9. The minor girl Kumari Kiranbala remained in Hospital from 9-8-80 to 23-10-80 on account of the above injuries and after discharge, the Doctor advised her for further operations, which she has not been able to get performed till now. At the time of the accident, she was a student of Class VIII and her age was only 13 years. Obviously, a young girl's entire future in regard to her education, matrimonial and social life has been severally jeopardised on account of this accident. It is common knowledge that if the thighs of a girl have disfigured, that will create a serious hazards in getting a good companion for her matrimonial relations. Apart from that, there has been permanent impediment as par the Doctor's testimony, which has remained unrebutted.
10. Looking to all these facts, the Award of Rs. 10,000/- on account of permanent impediment in the physics health and body of the girl and depriving of her from proper matrimonial life, apart from the loss of education and carrier is grossly inadequate. Mr. Singhi submits that Rs. 25,000/-should have been allowed and I am of the view that in demanding so, he has also under-estimated the real agony tragedy and loss which the girl is going to suffer in her life. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no amount of monitary compensation can compensate the terrible suffering which the girl will suffer in absence of proper companion for her matrimonial relations apart from the loss of education and social life. In my opinion, the minimum compensation, which should be awarded to her for this account should be Rs. 50,000/-. On other accounts, though there may be some chance of minor variations but it would not be worthwhile to go into details.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the R.S.R.T.C. has no force and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
12. However, the cross objections filed by respondent Kumari Kiranbala are allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is increased from Rs. 17,850/- to Rs. 57,850/-. She will get interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of realisation in view of the judgment of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Chameli Wati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , Narchinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Deo Martins and Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways 1987 (Vol. 1) ACC 1.