Right of insurer to object to quantum of compensation.

These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (District Judge) Tiruchirappalli awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant in C.M.A. No. 28 of 1963 who was involved in a accident caused by the lorry belonging to the first respondent, G. Veerappan, and which has been insured with the second respondent, Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Madras.

Appellant, Minor Ayesha Begum, aged about 5½ years, is the daughter of P.K. Mohamed Yusuf, residing at 105, East Bouleward Road, Tiruchirappalli. On 16th August, 1961 at about 1 p.m., while she was returning from her school, she was hit and injured by the lorry, MDY 3439. The actual incident was witnessed by P.W. 7, Subba Rao, who is keeping a betel-nut shop opposite to the Gosha Hospital, where the accident occurred. The evidence of P.W. 7 is that, when the child was proceeding to her house from the school keeping to the left side of the road, the lorry MDY 3439 came from south to north very fast without sounding the horn and hit the child by throwing her down. His evidence is that there was no other vehicle on the road at the time of the occurrence and that the width of the road is more than 30 feet. According to him, the driver of the lorry did not apply the brake to stop the lorry and went away even after knocking down the girl and had to be stopped by one Karunakaran. Soon after the accident, P.W. 1, the father of the girl, was informed of the accident by P.W. 6, a clerk in the Tiruchi Vysya Bank. P.W.I took the girl and admitted her in the Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirappalli. P.W. 5, Dr. Bashrudeen, examined her, and suspecting fracture, directed X-ray photos of the thigh and hip joint to be taken. P.W. 5 Dr. Bashruddeen has stated that there was dislocation of pelvic bone as shown in the X-ray photos, Exhibits A-3 and A-4. He further said that hit by a vehicle like the lorry was likely to cause the fracture. As the stay in the hospital did not do her any good, P.W. 1 took her to P.W. 2, Dr. V. K. Ranganathan, a medical practitioner of 18 years’ standing, who found fracture, dislocation of the right sacrioliac joint and dislocation of the symphysis pubis. He advised that the child should be shown to a Orthopaedic Specialist. P.W. 1, therefore, brought the child to Madras and showed her to one Dr. Natarajan, a Orthopaedic Specialist. The doctor advised a course of treatment for the child. P.W.1’s evidence is that she is unable to walk or run freely and is crippled. Thus it has been established that the child was involved in a lorry accident and sustained an injury. The Tribunal (District Judge) found the child limping and having a big belt around her hip. The Tribunal found that the injury was the result of an accident brought about by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the first: respondent.

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the appellant had claimed Rs. 15,000. After considering the status and the loss of enjoyment of normal life of the child, the learned Judge has awarded Rs. 5,000 as compensation.

Against this order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, minor Ayesha Begum has filed C.M.A. No. 28 of 1963, for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Madras Motor and general Insurance Company Limited, the second respondent in the lower Court, has filed CM. A. No. 17 of 1963 contending that the amount awarded is arbitrary and based on a rough and ready estimate.

Now, Birkett, L.J., in Bird v. Cocking & Sons Ltd.1, has observed:

"The assessment of damages in cases of personal injuries is, perhaps, one of the most difficult tasks which a judge has to perform. The task is so difficult because the elements which must be considered in forming the assessment in any given case vary so infinitely from other cases that there can be no fixed and unalterable standard for assessing the amounts for those particular elements. Although there is no fixed and unalterable standard, the Courts