AVADH BEHARI RCHATGI, J.

( 1 ) THE Facts. On 5-12-1961 at about 9. 30 a. m. the respondent, Kumari Lalita a girl of eight, was standing at the bus stand of Vinay Nagai Colony at Ring Road, New Delhi. She was waiting for the arrival of the bus to go to her school. All of a sudden a bus of appellant No. I, Delhi Transport Corporation (the Corporation), No. DLP 705 driven by Suresh Chander, appellant No. 2 came and crushed her. Lalita received severe and lasting injuries. The accident was a disaster. She. was permanently disabled. She was crippled for life. The doctors gave evidence before the Motor Accidents Clamis Tribunal where she brought her claim for damages. They paid that she would never be a normal child again. She will never be able to walk. She will limp. She will not be able to bear children. She will have no control ever her bowel action. Her natural development has been retarded.

( 2 ) ON the question of negligence the tribunal was of the opinion that the driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving. But it found Lalita also guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20 percent. As regards comnensation the tribunal assessed damages at Rs. 15,000 but award- ed her only Rs. 12,000 because of her contributory negligence. This was the decision of the tribunal on 10th August, 1964.

( 3 ) FROM the order of the tribunal the Corporation brought an appeal. Lalita filed cross-objections. A learned single judge (V. D. Misra, J. as he then was) by order dated July 21, 1972 increased the compensation from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 50,000. He dismissed the appeal of the Corporation. He allowed the cross-objections of Lalita. From his order the Corporation has brought this lexers patent appeal Again Lalita has filed cross-objections claiming that the compensation be increased from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1 lakh. Contributory negligence of children.

( 4 ) THERE has been a great deal of argument on the question of negligence before the tribunal and Misra J. The tribunal found Lalita Guilty of contributory negligence. Misra J. set aside that finding. He found that the accident was solely the result of negligence of the driver and there was no contribuory negligence on the part of the injured.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the Corporation again argued the question of negligence before us and tried to show that Lalita was equally to blame for the unfortunate accident. Now it is settled in England and India that a very young child, like this child of eight, cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. An older child may be; but it all depends on the circumstances. It will depend on the age and mental development of the child and other circumstances of the case. A judge should only find a child guilty of contributory negligence if he or she is of such an age as to be expected to take precaution for his or her own safety, and then he or she is only to be found guilty it blame should be attached to him or her. A child has not ths road sense or the experience of his or her elders. He or she is not to be found guilty unless he or she is blameworthy. Gouch vs. Thorne (1966) I WLR 1387 (1) and A. R. Gandhi vs. A. K. Dewan, AIR 1979 Gujarat, 14 (2), and R. Srinivasa vs. K. M. Parasivamurthy AIR 1976 Karnataka 92 (3 ). A normal child of 7 or 8 is momentarily forgetful of the perils of crossing the road and no finding of contributory negligence can be made against it (Jones vs. Lawrence, (1969) 3 All E. R. 267) (4 ).

( 6 ) INFANTS must, it seems, be treated as a category apart. In many cases infants have been held not guilty of contributory negligence where adults would, on similar facts, have been deemed to be contributorily negligent. The test is : What degree of care for his own safety can an infant of the particular age reasonably be expected to take ? The age of the child is a circumstance which must be considered in deciding whether it has been guilty of contributory negligence.

( 7 ) IN the case of a child of tender age, conduct on the part of such child

Click Here to Read the rest of this document