Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr  INSC 652 (9 November 1995)
K. (J) Venkataswami K. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) K. Venkataswami, J.
1995 SCC (6) 623 1995 SCALE (6)270
counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment and order in F.A.F.O.
No. 994/94 of Allahabad High Court dated 22.9.94. The appellant while working
as Beldar, to be more specific while pouring water on the wheels of road-roller
moving on the road, met with an accident on 8.5.1989. As result of the said
accident, the appellant's right leg had to be amputated. As the accident was
due to the negligence on the part of the person who drove the road- roller
belonging to the first respondent, the appellant moved a claim petition before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/-.
The Tribunal found that/the negligence was on the part of the person who drove
the road-roller. It may be mentioned at this place that the regular driver who
was permitted to drive the said road-roller was on leave and the cleaner who
had no licence factually drove the road-roller on the date of accident. The
Tribunal on the basis of the evidence placed before it awarded a total compensation
of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 12%.
by the ward of compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- the respondent preferred an appeal
to the high Court. The learned Judge while concurring with the finding of the
Tribunal that the accident had occasioned on account of the negligence on the
part of the person who drove the road- roller, reduced the compensation from 1,45,000/-
to Rs.85,000/- with interest. at 12%. For reducing the amount of compensation
from Rs.1,45,000/- to Rs.85,000/- the High Court has accepted the contention
advanced on behalf of the respondents herein (appellants before it) that the claiment
would have secured only Rs.85,000/- by way of compensation if he had moved the
Commissioner of Workmens' Compensation.
not think that the High Court was right in accepting that reasoning on the
facts of this case when the finding is that the accident had occasioned while
the road-roller was on the move and the negligence was on the part of the
person who drove the road-roller belonging to the respondents. The further fact
to be noted here is that the appellant was just 18 years old at the time of
accident as found by the High Court and he has to live with that throughout his
life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself was not much warranting a
appeal to be preferred by the State.
circumstances the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of
the Tribunal in M.A.C. No. 129/89 dated 21.5.94 is restored. The appeal is
accordingly allowed with costs.