IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 413 of 2010 alongwith CWP No. 1288 of 2011 Date of decision : 12.10.2011 FAO No. 413 of 2010 Master Pushpinder @ Ishu …Appellant Versus J.D.Verma and another …Respondents CWP No.1288 of 2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Pushpinder @ Ishu and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Insurance Company: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent – claimant: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent- owner: Ms. Sheetal Kimta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. These two cases are being disposed of by a common judgement since they arise out of a common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant Pushpinder, who is aged about 8 years, filed a petition through his mother and natural guardian 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 claiming that he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 8.4.2007. According to the claimant, he had suffered a serious injury including permanent disability due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car HP-34-A-5653. The respondent denied the allegation made by the petitioner. After trial the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant had suffered injuries in the accident and awarded Rs.20,000/- on account of medical expenses, transportation expenses, attendant charges and special diet, etc., Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities, etc. Aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company filed CWP No.1288 of 2011. The claimant not being satisfied by the award has filed FAO No. 413 of 2010. 3. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned in writ proceedings the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court cannot be interfered with unless it shows that the same is perverse. The accident is not denied but the allegation of the respondents was that the injury occurred due to the negligence of the child. It is settled law that contributory negligence can never be attributed to a small child of eight years. Therefore, the finding on the issue of negligence is upheld. 3 4. As far as the compensation is concerned, the evidence on record shows that the claimant was shifted to IGMC where he remained admitted for one day. According to the mother the claimant is still undergoing treatment in IGMC. PW-3 Dr. Ravi Sharma is the Professor and Head of the department of Psychiatry, IGMC and according to him the child is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. This is the entire evidence with regard to the injuries suffered by the child. It is apparent that there is no major external injury and basically the child suffered from a trauma. Even according to PW-3 the child would have recovered within a year or so. Therefore, the amount awarded appears to be reasonable and calls for no interference. Both the writ petition and appeal are accordingly rejected. 12th October, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge