•o BEFORE THE HON'HLE HIGH CX)URT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR 'c'^ ^'" k^' MSISC» APPEM- NO» -!-5 9- /2003, 'v/' h^ J^PELLANT/ /ORIGINAL APPLICANT .-^ ...•^?^ ^•^ ^ <?^% «.'-^^"" .•yy €^' ^ Raja De^angan aged about 3 Years S/o^ ^endl&l Dewangan Minor repre|y^^e<l by guardian Father Gendlal Dew&ng^nD s/Oe Jawaharlal Dewancpan aged abaut 26 Yrs» Resident of Majar Katta^ Thana—Gariab^adc Distt* Raipur (CoGo) VERSUS RSS^ONDENTS/ CGINAL NON-APPLICANT •a Jl< Leela Rain Sabu aged about 47 years S/o« Tiharu Sahu R/o« Malgaon, Tti^na» G ariyaband^ Distt ^ Raipur^ CtGo r«, united Iiidia Insurance Oo< fs^Ltd»»G»E»Road»Kutchery Chowk^ Raipur» Distt^ Ralpur^ CoG^ MEMORANDTM OFAPPEAL UNDER^.S'iCTION 1^3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT VALUSD AT Rs«2.75,000'"00« c.. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSG^RH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 157 OF 2003 APPELLANT/ ORIGINALAPPLICANT RESPONDENTS ORIGINBAL NON. APPLICANTS Raja Dewangan [-? Versus Leela Ram Sahu and another. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT (Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Anant Bajpai, counsel for the appeflant. Smt. Hameeda Sjddiqui, counset for respoodent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th day of September, 2010) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeltant seeking enhancement of compensation s^ainst the award dated 14-11-2002 passed by First Addl. Motor Aocident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in daim case No.36/2002 whereby and whereunder the claim petition preferred bythe appellarri/claimant was dlsmissed. 2. Brief facts of the case according to appeUant are that, ©n 11-01-2002, the app^llSnt aged aboutS years, while playing in front of his house, was dashed by the driver of TVS Motor Cycle bearing registration No. CG-04/^30, as a result of which, the appellant sustained fracture in his left leg. 3. A criminal case was registered against respondentNo.1 under Sections 279,337 and 338 of I.P.C. 4. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, Gtaimlng compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. "^.^......^ (& 5. The Tribunal, on a dose scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, assessed the arnount of compensation at Rs. 8,253/- but dismissed the claim petttion hoteling that the appellant/claimant did not prove rash and negligent drivjng of Qffending vehide by respondent No.1. 6. The owner/driver djd not appear in the witeiess box and dtd not adduce any evjdence to rebut the case of the claimant. 7. The Tribunal on the face of record went wrong in holding respondent No.1 not responsible for rash and negligent driving. The accident was not denied. A minor chitel aged 3 years cannotbe held responsible for the accident nor it can be sald that he contributed to the cause of negligence. The driver of the vehicle did not enter into the witness box in order to explain the inddent. In such case, the djsmissal of the claimpetttion on the ground that the minor appellant feiled to prove the rash and negligent driving ofthe respondent is not sustainable in (aw and deserves to be set aside. 8. In view of above, in the considered opinion of thte Court, the appellant is entitled for compensation. As the appellant is satisfied with the compensatjon assessed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.8,253/- for the injury sustained by him in the said accNerrt, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the above amount as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application against the respondents joirtly and severally. Advocate's fee as per schedule. 9. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Kvr