( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of two cross-appeals, FAO 24-D of 1966, and FAO 80 D of 1966, directed against judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which have arisen in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) ON August 14, 1964, Sunil Kumar, herein referred to as the appellant , who at that time was six years of age, was involved in an accident with a DTU bus, bearing registration No. DLP 251, owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 2, and Delhi Transport Undertaking (now Delhi Transport Corporation), herein referred to as respondent No. 3 which at the time of the accident was driven by the driver, respondent No. 1. The accident took place at about 11. 45 a. m. on the East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as a result of which the appellant received severe injuries and was rushed to Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, where his right leg above the knee had to be amputated. The appellant filed his claim through his next friend, his father, M. L. Dhingra, for a sum of Rs. 60,000. 00 as compensation on account of injuries received on his person. The accident was said to be the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1, the driver. The appellant claimed that he had lost chance of becoming an Engineer or being appointed a gazetted officer or joining the military service and marrying in a good family. The entire future life of the appellant was said to have been ruined as he had been rendered a permanent dependent on others. The respondents, however, denied negligence on the part of the driver and stated that the bus was proceeding on the East Park Road from Rohtak Road side towards Filmastan cinema. When it reached the crossing of the Gali Purana Shidipura, the appellant came all of a sudden running from the side of the Gali to cross the main road along with certain other school children. Ignoring the approach of the bus, the appellant is said to have struck against its right rear portion and was thrown off.

( 3 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, respondent No. 1. It also held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 2,989. 00 towards special damages and Rs. 10,000. 00 towards general damages for personal suffering and loss of enjoyment of life and probable future loss of income. The petitioner was thus held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 12,989. 00 and an award was made for that amount in appellants favour against the respondents with costs,

( 4 ) IN appeal, F. A. O. 24-D of 1966, Sunil Kumar, the appellant, has asked for enhancement of the damages to Rs. 50,000. 00 while in appeal, F. A. O. 80-D of 1966 respondent No. 3, the Delhi Transport Undertaking (now the Delhi Transport Corporation), has prayed for the setting aside of the award and dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent.

( 5 ) MR. Roshan Lal Tandon the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that the child had been crushed under the right rear wheel of the bus, when the bus was in about the middle of the road. This, according to him, shows that the child had come up to the middle of the road and had fallen under the rear wheel, when the driver could not possibly have noticed the child so falling. The fact that the front portion of the bus was not involved in the impact, he said, was enough to establish that the driver was not to be blamed for this accident. He referred to the statements of three eye witnesses, who have appeared on behalf of the appellant, as also to the statements of the witnesses of the respondents.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to AW1, Sunder Mohan who was standing outside his shop, the appellant was coming from his school holding a bag and a takhti in his hand, from the side of Filmastan and was going towards Rohtak Road, on his left side of the road at about three feet from the left patri, when the offending bus coming from the opposite direction, was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document