http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURESH CHANDRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1995

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6) 623        1995 SCALE  (6)270

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.Venkataswami, J.      Leave granted.      Heard counsel on both sides.      This 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%.      Aggrieved 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. We do  not think  that the High Court was right in accepting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.      In the 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.